Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 4

Historical Information

 * Provision of Destinations no longer served to give the historical context of see Talk:Glasgow International Airport for specific discussions. (I've moved this from the project page to here for discussion, and the text below from the GLA talk page /wangi 07:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC))

Glasgow - and probably other airports - has a rich history of destinations that have been previously served. Right up to date we have the withdrawal of the Southampton service by BA Connect, but previously there is the JFK/BOS service by BA; YYZ by AC; CDG direct by Jersey European (now flyBe.). Going further into the past there is the AirUK service to STN (the AMS service is the legacy service to the now KLM Cityhopper service).

The historical information is as important and the current information and should be moved to an appropriate location when ceases to be current. For example a section on past destinations served could be added. Pencefn 07:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Direct Flights
I propose we modify the project page to use the standard we have been following, in that faux-direct flights (stopping flights that go through a hub) shouldn't be listed. Some users have been following what's currently on the project page, which is expected, but not what we intended. We should also remove the line that the flight number but not necessarily the plane continues through. Flights involving plane changes aren't really direct. Dbinder (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Direct flights should remain. The airlines market these flights at both ends as direct service between the city pairs.  The passengers are often not aware that it is a non stop flight until they are on the plane or maybe at the gate.  Without doing some digging for many airlines, the fact that the flight is nostop can be hidden on some airline sites.  Vegaswikian 18:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This actually came up today at Talk:Glasgow International Airport... I feel services where you have to exit the plane should not be listed. On that talk page I list a number of services which currently aren't listed but should be if we follow the letter of the guideline. Ta/wangi 21:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Dropping the 'even if the plane changes' makes sense. This would eliminate the issue where an airline uses multiple flight numbers to a destination.  The whole purpose of this appears to be to move people from multiple aircraft from multiple locations, frequently hubs, to a single aircraft for the final destination.  I'll change that since I don't expect there to be much objection to removing that minor phrase.  Vegaswikian


 * As probably the instigator of this particular debate, here are a few of my thoughts. But as a Wiki newbie, I am still getting to terms with the conventions.


 * The definition of only listing flights were you can stay on the aircraft would mean that flight such as NZ001/002 LHR-LAX-AKL where US Immigration rules means that transit passengers have to leave the aircraft to enter the US would not be allowed. By allowing routes which retain the same number and aircraft this example would be allowed.


 * The example of US 563/4 GLA-PHL-SFO and CO016/7 GLA-EWR-LAX fall appear to fall into the prohibited category since there is an aircraft change.


 * A European example would be BA 4102 FRA-BRS-GLA where the PAX have to clear UK Immigration at BRS, whilst their bags remain on the aircraft. There are also other examples as BHX were a BA flight from Scotland continues into Europe with the same aircraft and flight number.


 * Returning to a US example are some of the multi-sector Southwest flights were the passenger can stay on board during the stops. An old example I know, but I flew on a BOI-SLC that went onto LAS and ultimately BWI. On arrival at SLC (where I left the aircraft) the flight attendants requested those continuing on to remain on board.


 * I suppose another way of considering this is if the bags are unloaded then the flight should not be listed.


 * Pencefn 22:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see the archived discussion on this topic at this talk page's Archive. I won't repeat it here again, but the point was made about distant destinations, such as Australia nad New Zealand where flight have to stop at an intermediate point. While I take your point that many US domestic airlines market 'faux direct flights', I think what you are proposing would pose problems for flights between the south pacific and other parts of the world (as discussed on the archived page). I think there needs to be an exception in these cases. -- Adz|talk 02:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I argue for just removing the "but not necessarily the plane" line. The guideline should be that the flight # and the plane continue on to another destination. Our bizarre immigration rules that require you to "enter" the country in order to leave it, so passengers staying on NZ flights to London must clear before continuing, but those flights should still be listed. Also, I started this post mainly because of an issue with faux-direct NW flights being listed at a number of US airports, so no one else is to "blame". Dbinder (talk) 03:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm mindful though that Qantas hubs in Singapore and it's possible (I don't know because it has been several years since I've flown from Europe to Australia) that the aircraft operating QF1 or QF5 between SYD and LHR or Frankfurt actually changes, but the intention is still very much to provide a flight between Sydney and London or Frankfurt. Also, how would editors actually know whether there is a change of aircraft.
 * Don't get me wrong, I see what your saying, and agree that 'direct' flights on US domestic routes are a problem, but I think that the same rule can't apply to south pacific routes. -- Adz|talk 04:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think there should be a requirement that if an airport lists a destination as a direct flight, the destination airport must have a direct flight to the origination airport. I also agree with the "faux-direct flights" rule and the United States hub rule. (I won't comment on flights outside of the U.S.) Tinlinkin 23:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Even that reasonable-sounding rule has odd cases. For example Cathay Pacific has a round trip Hong Kong-Adelaide-Melbourne-Hong Kong. They are not allowed to carry domestic passengers between Adelaide and Melbourne, but does CX105/CX104 Adelaide-Melbourne-Hong Kong count as "direct"? --Scott Davis Talk 14:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. I think you'd have to consider that the intention is to provide a service between HKG and MEL, and between ADL and HKG. Presumably the airline would market it as such, so I would say that it would be fair to list in the article a connection between both HKG-MEL and ADL-HKG. On the other hand, I don't think that Cathay should be listed as providing a service to Melboure (which it obviously doesn't). It's a good example though. It might be another example of the need to 'bend the rules' so to speak, although presumably in this case, the same aircraft operates the flight, and the intention is clearly to provide connections between those cities. (Although even if the passengers got off the aircraft at MEL and hopped on another CX aircraft, I'd still say it was a direct service). -- Adz|talk 14:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is an example of an A-B-C-A flight route pattern, in which service is intended between A-B and A-C (but not B-C) in both directions with one plane. So for Adelaide-Hong Kong, CX104 (ADL-MEL-HKG) is a direct flight with one stop (MEL is not a hub), and with CX105 (non-stop) would also satisfy my round-trip proposition. (There is direct service both ways HKG-MEL on CX135/CX134.) Another example is Delta Airlines flight 112 (JFK-DUB-SNN-JFK). Tinlinkin 15:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

External Link on Zürich International Airport
Ha, again, another dispute on the external links, this time, on Zürich International Airport. Swiss Aviation Supporter has been adding this link many times, while I have been removing it on the grounds of 1) it being a site that does not provide a unique resource and 2) it being a foreign-language site, that doesn't have the criteria of an allowable foreign-language site. Any other thoughts on this? Elektrik Blue 82 20:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, I've added the article to my watch list/L/wangi 14:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Elektrik Blue 82, ZRHwiki is obviously a free online encyclopedia on Zurich International Airport, that's quite unique in my opinion and therefore link-worthy for Wikipedia, even if ZRHwiki is only available in German (as far as I know). I therefore disagree with you folks because ZRHwiki is 1. a "a unique resource" and 2. a foreign-language site containing "visual aids such as maps, diagrams, or tables".


 * See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Swiss_Aviation_Supporter#Linkspam as well.


 * --Swiss Aviation Supporter 13:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I wonder which part of WP:EL do you not understand? Can you explain how that site is a unique resource? It might contain visual aids such as maps, diagrams, and tables, but one must need knowledge of German to navigate through the site. I've reported you for 3RR as you continually add that site to the page. Elektrik Blue 82 16:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You appear to be slapping your own wrist by the comment "It might contain visual aids such as maps, diagrams, and tables, but one must need knowledge of German to navigate through the site.". WP:EL and WP:MOS-L specifically states that "Foreign-language sites (should be avoided), unless they contain visual aids such as maps, diagrams, or tables". In the same vein, could you explain how that site is completely dublicated by all available links in this article? Further more, your continous exercise to remove that link has apparantly also resulted in your violation of the 3RR.--Huaiwei 04:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What I am concerned about is the fact that one MUST need to know German in order to navigate thru the site. The link points to a Hauptseite, a Homepage, not to a visual aid, not to a map, a diagram, or a table. Besides, I think it is more of a collection of superfluous information: i.e. it is separate articles for ZRH (a short article saying it is the IATA code of the airport), or LSZH (again a short article saying it is the ICAO code of the airport). Is this link really encyclopedic? Elektrik Blue 82 17:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * When I attempted to stumble through the site (and I used to be fluent in Deutsch) I didn't come across any maps/diagrams... /wangi 22:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Having no knowledge of German, I was able to find my way to the Airbus A380 article with a pretty picture. While I agree that it may contain enough to constitute a unique resource, I wonder if all of this information is available on the German Wikipedia anyway. Let me put it this way... if somebody had cross-Wiki linked to a German article, we wouldn't hesitate to remove it. German wiki, yes. English wiki, I'd say definately not. (On the bright side, I think I just figured out that Aprilscherz! is April Fools! in German). thadius856talk 08:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There are a number of concerns with the zrhwiki site, regardless of the reasons given here... See Talk:Zürich International Airport. Thanks/wangi 09:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Destination Lists as separate section
I've noticed that in a few articles users have been creating a separate section with a list of nonstop destinations from a given airport (such as Sky Harbor International Airport). This is in addition to the list of airlines and destinations and seems totally redundant to me, and if nothing else it makes the articles really long. Since I haven't seen anything about it on the project pages, I assume it isn't part of this. Also, DFW has its own separate page for this list, which I listed for deletion. Anyone have any comments? Dbinder 13:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Listing destinations in that way seems to be part of a travel guide. It seems to say we have direct service from all of these locations.  If they want that information go to wikitravel.  I suspect that it is not on the project page becuause no one thought it was necessary.  The project pages are in some ways driven like laws.  You assume that you can get by with next to no content.  Then as editors push the limits you have to decide what restrictions you need to add.  If you wanted to add something about not adding additional types of destination information then give it a try.  Vegaswikian 19:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty useless if only because it's basically redundant. We don't need to cross-reference everything. It's clear enough to say who flies to where. FCYTravis 00:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I've hard problem to verify destanation lists for airports. With current airline and city identfiers and no references it's hard to validate if schedules are still in place or things has changed since last edit. A lot of websites allow to search only on combination of source, destanation and date. This violate Verifiability. I feel that it will be good practice to list flight numbers near each city in airlines sections. Listing flight numbers will allow to easily verify if information is correct or something has changed (i.e. impossible to find this flight number) since than. Your opinion ? --TAG 17:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer to delete the section completely! Really that would lead to such a mess of a list. Thanks/wangi 17:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I oppose deletion. I will agree only on move to WikiTravel and some system will be in place to get externals links (like Аmadeus and others сomputer reservations systems) to get up to date information based on flight numbers. --TAG 00:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Flight numbers can and do change. Adding those would clutter the list and are not encylopedic.  Even small airports can have a large number of flights to a hub airport.  Consider how many entries you would need for say for LGA to BOS. Vegaswikian 02:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For large and well known airports there is no issues to figure out if they are still connected. But for some airports there is no combined schedules and you have to collect all information on case by case basic from airlines (even oag.com fail !!). My proposal is to list flight numbers in html comments or edit summary - not in main article content. TAG 11:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Airlines that have seriously considered service, past and present
Does anyone think this section such as is in Portland International Airport is encyclopedic at all. Looks like pure speculation to me. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know I would say they were all speculation. But the bigger question is, are is are they encylopedic?  I don't see them staying in the Airlines section.  If they are really notable and verifiable events, they could go into history.  A decision by a major airline to not enter a market could be significant.  I don't think that an application for an international route by an airline is worth mentioning in an airport article.  However that event is likely notable for inclusion in the airline's history.  The big problem with considering these as encylopedic is how do you verify the reasons why a decison turned out the way it did?  Dropping that section would not be an issue for me.  Vegaswikian 06:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not convinced about this. Taking an example close to home (Glasgow - GLA/EGPF). 18 months ago Air Scotland announced that it was to fly from Glasgow to Baghdad. Was this really serious, we will never know; was it ever practical we will never know......


 * Should Wikipedia include a section on this. I do not think so, We could end with everything being listed, from speculation reported in the media as a result of "maybe/if" thoughts as a result of "leaks" from Airlines, up to those services withdrawn just before the first flight. Were is the dividing line of a service that is "seriously" considered. "Seriously" considered could be flights that are thought about and rejected at the first consideration, months before the first flight would has taken place.


 * Pencefn 06:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Help appreciated with GLA article
I'd appreciate a hand with the list of future destinations at Glasgow: Glasgow International Airport. Recently it's been getting a lot of edits, and these seem to be of the rumour of service type, it currently lists: The entries which can be verified (i.e. news item on the airline website or newspaper article) should be kept, ordered by start date, current airline name used and non-encyclopedic info removed... As in like this:
 * easyJet (London-Gatwick, starts 2 October 2006)
 * Top Jet Air (Gran Canaria, starts 1 November 2006) (Re-branded Air Scotland)
 * Top Jet Air (Lanzarote, starts 2 November 2006) (Re-branded Air Scotland)
 * Flyglobespan (Fuerteventura, starts 7 November 2006)
 * Virgin Atlantic (Orlando [seasonal], starts Summer 2007)
 * easyJet (Milan, starts 6 November 2006) - Not on sale yet.
 * easyJet (Barcelona, starts March 2007) - Not on sale yet.
 * easyJet (Madrid, starts March 2007) - Not on sale yet.


 * easyJet (London-Gatwick, starts 2 October 2006)
 * Air Scotland (Gran Canaria, starts 1 November 2006)
 * Air Scotland (Lanzarote, starts 2 November 2006)
 * Flyglobespan (Fuerteventura, starts 4 November 2006)
 * Virgin Atlantic (Orlando [seasonal], starts Summer 2007)

The easyJet flights to Milan, Barcelona & Madrid have not been announced, are not in the booking system and are not in the easyJet route map. I would make this edit myself, but I'd prefer someone else to read through this, agree with me and then make the edit since I'm sorta involved in this section outwith WP: http://www.taxiwayalpha.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=3238. Geneva keeps getting added to the list too, even though it's an established seasonal destination already listed.

Oh, and the section needs renamed to "Future destinations". Thanks/wangi 12:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The easyJet routes for next Summer appear to be nothing more than rumours. They might even be currently being considered by easyJet, however until they are announced by easyJet, I would not give them any credance. It is far too early to expect easyJet to make any new route announcements for their Summer 2007 programme.


 * As regards Cancun, I have not seen any official announcement from Globespan, however since they are serving Capetown from Manchester over the Winter, I doubt Mexico is anything more than someone's wishful thinking. As with easyJet, unless Globespan have made an offical announcement, then this information has no place in a reference source. My response would be where is the reliable reference to this information.


 * Turning to Air Scotland or Top Jet Air, have they changed their name yet. Not as of last week when I was last at GLA. the Air Scotland web site makes not mention of a future name change. Where is the reference to this information?


 * My feelings are that information should be verifiable from official sources - that DOES NOT mean a rumour on Pprune or ScotAvnet or printed media, but does mean an official announcement from the Airline or Airport concerned.


 * I do approve of the provision of references against each of the future destinations listed.


 * Pencefn 13:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response - I agree with all your points... Perhaps you could edit the article to replace the current content with suggested content above? Thanks/wangi 14:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not link?
Could someone who knows please add a sentence to item 4 of the airport article structure to explain why destination cities should be listed but not wikilinked? This is not intuitive to people who come across an airport article as part of geography, rather than as part of this wikiproject. --Scott Davis Talk 05:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Why the silence?--Huaiwei 04:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would imagine that the links would clutter up the page. But I think links to destination airports should be allowed. I don't want to always have to search for the airport in List of airports by IATA code or to have to go to the city article and find the link to the airport. Tinlinkin 09:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've also often wondered this. The only reasons I can think of are that providing links to destination cities/airports would blow out the 'what links here' list at those articles. Another question might be whether to provide a link to the city or the airport. If it is decided to provide links, I would suggest providing both, in the form of: Melbourne, (MEL) where the IATA code is provided but links to the airport article. -- Adz|talk 11:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

My reason for asking was that I was reverted for having put in the links in Darwin International Airport. I thought they were interesting in that case as some of the domestic flights are longer than many of the international ones, and many destinations are not well-known places (part of my motive was to see for myself which places are in NT and which are in other states). If I had the tools and data, I'd consider a route map for that airport. --Scott Davis Talk 14:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that the reason they are not done is the fact that there is a desire to not make these articles look like link farms. Also consider that you should only link an article once.  When a destination changes, then it will frequently mean two changes to links.  By not linking, the display is much cleaner and easier to follow.  We also avoid some of the issues with making these articles look too much like ones that belong in a travel wiki.  Also consider when links should be used, Use the links for all words and terms that are relevant to the article.  The destinations are not relevant to the article about the airport.  These links are informative. but not relevant.  Also consider the statement ''On the other hand, do not make too many links. An article may be considered overlinked if any of the following is true:
 * ''more than 10% of the words are contained in links;
 * it has more links than lines;
 * Those items are from the Manual of Style (links) so they are the guide we should be using for these and all other articles. In the end, the question is why would you need the link?  To better understand the airport?  Or to better understand when you can travel from?  The former would be OK to link, the latter not.  Vegaswikian 18:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Doesn't an airport act like a train station? You have to know where the next stop is (or what train route the station is part of). While listing the destinations are not integral to the operations of the airport, users searching for information on the airport search for where they are going. I am aware of the travel guide issue, but in this instance, airport destination listings are akin to train station destination listings, IMO.
 * Perhaps this is a compromise, and it seems more intuitive than the methods of finding airports as I described above. This example is from Salt Lake City International Airport:


 * American Airlines (Destinations: Chicago-O'Hare, Dallas/Fort Worth)
 * Continental Airlines (Destinations: Houston-Intercontinental, Newark)
 * Continental Express operated by ExpressJet Airlines (Destinations: Houston-Intercontinental)
 * Frontier Airlines (Destinations: Cancún, Denver)
 * JetBlue Airways (Destinations: Long Beach, New York-JFK)
 * Northwest Airlines (Destinations: Detroit, Minneapolis/St. Paul)
 * US Airways
 * US Airways operated by America West Airlines (Destinations: Las Vegas, Phoenix)
 * US Airways Express operated by Air Midwest (Destinations: Cedar City, Moab, Vernal)
 * US Airways Express operated by Mesa Airlines (Destinations: Las Vegas, Phoenix)
 * ("Destinations" may be in italics and/or lower case. I don't know why the JetBule Airways destination article is JetBlue destinations.) Tinlinkin 20:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Vegaswikian 20:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Train stations are located on train lines. So you ust go from station 1 to station 2 and so on.  Aircraft do not have a similar restriction.  If you have watched AfD, listing of bus routes has been an issue.  They are considered to not be encylopedic.  I see the airline being closer to buses in listing destinations since there are more bus routes then train routes.  I'm not sure exactly were airline destination pairs fits in, but my guess would be between those two.  Vegaswikian 20:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Scott, sorry for not replying to this on your original request, or when I said I would! There are historic reasons (which while i've not found I have searched for and heard others talk about) but I personally have a few problems with linking the destination airports: Thanks/wangi 01:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The article source becomes totally unreadable with such a high frequency of wikilinks.
 * 2) The destinations lists themselves are borderline cases for being encyclopedic.
 * 3) The link to the airline will include a section (or sub-article) listing and wikilinking to the destination airports (and cities).

Airport names in infoboxes
Do we include the native name in the infobox airport title area (e.g., Munich International Airport  Flughafen München Franz Josef Strauß or Narita International Airport   成田国際空港)? If so, do we use small font, or normal font? I asked this question on the airport infobox talkpage, but no one answered me. --physicq210 19:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't know if it follows any standard, but including the native name would be nice. Putting it in the infobox, and only in the infobox, would make the article cleaner.  I like the idea of using the   and maybe a smaller font size would be a good direction.  Vegaswikian 00:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've put it in the template, just use . The English name displays at 100% font size, and the Native name is at 95% font size (like the rest of the template). — Mets 501  (talk) 00:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A duplicte discussion on this is not a good idea. However, the 95% does not look any smaller than the full size.


 * Copied from the Infobox discussion:
 * "I've always been including the alternate names (not always native names though) but using small font like this to reduce space rather than this. Also I noticed that some airport have italics in the box and some don't. I'm not bothered either way but a standard would be a good idea. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)"


 * I seem to have changed several back to small font before I saw this discussion because of the way they appeared in my watchlist. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I was going to change them back but as I look at them I think I have to say that the looks better than increasing the first name to 110% and the alternate names to 100%. A minor point, it should be "alternate name" not "native name". Some airports such as Toronto Pearson International Airport (used by the airport authority) and "Toronto/Lester B. Pearson International Airport" (used by the govenment and ICAO) are both native names. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've changed the template to use the regular font for the first name and then a small font for the native name(s). It's OK if you want two English names there, just use &lt;br> in the  parameter, or put one in the  parameter and one in the  parameter. — Mets 501  (talk) 12:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I see what you did with Toronto and that looks good. Waht about the ones that have italics? Any thoughts on those? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I generally think that if the "native name" is already small then it doesn't need to be italicized — Mets 501 (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Another question. What about the names in Chinese, Japanese, or Korean characters? They are barely discernable under the small font format. --physicq210 23:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the Asian characters should probably go under but inside &lt;big> tags. That will make them normal sized. (See example at Narita International Airport) Thoughts? — Mets 501  (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm good with that. physicq210 00:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait, even better. It can go under  - much easier to type. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mets501 (talk • contribs)
 * The only problem is that the Korean and Chinese airport infoboxes have romanization within them, rendering it...confusing? --physicq210 18:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh god you're right. This is so confusing.  I have an idea.
 * For airports with English characters only:
 * English name goes under
 * Secondary name(s) (native name) goes under, separated by &lt;br /> if there are more than one.
 * For airports with Asian characters:
 * English name goes under
 * Native name(s) with Asian characters goes under, separated by &lt;br /> if there are more than one.
 * Romanized native name(s) goes under, separated by &lt;br /> if there are more than one.
 * will display normal sized.  will display with &lt;small> tags.   will display normal sized.   will display with &lt;small> tags and italicized, because that is the standard for transliterated words.  What do you think? —  Mets 501  (talk)  20:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's confusing, but could be the correct solution. Vegaswikian 20:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not too confusing though, if you think about it.  and  for English characters,, , and  for Asian characters.  Once all the infoboxes use this style, then it's easy to change size/font/etc. for the English name, the native name, and Romanizations.—  Mets 501  (talk)  20:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, the Romanized native name looked really looked ugly small and italicized, so I've made it normal sized and italicized. — Mets 501  (talk)  21:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How about small and not italicized? --physicq210 23:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Either way. I was thinking that it should probably be the same size as the non-Western text which was Romanized, but I'm OK with either.  Should I change it? —  Mets 501  (talk)  23:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I changed it already. Cheers, physicq210 01:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Been watching this one from the sidelines... My only concern is the extra complexity added to the template - is it worthwhile over the current method? Thanks/wangi 01:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think so, because then it will have everything separated (name, nativename, and transliteration), so that if we want to change the style of one it is very easy. The old system will continue to work, however, so existing uses don't need to be changed. — Mets 501  (talk)  01:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Actually, I wouldn't be against the infobox simply containing the "official" English name (what we name the article), with all the various other versions in the main article itself (doesn't have to be the lead either)... In the past that seemed to be the norm - the move toward mulpitle names in the infobox has come about recently I think? Thanks/wangi 01:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem there is which "official" name? The one the airport uses or the one the Government agency uses? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * WARNING! Stupid question ahead. Shouldn't they be the same? --physicq210 23:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a stupid question and the answer is who knows? Look at Region of Waterloo International Airport. The company calls it that but NAV CANADA or Transport Canada calls it Kitchener/Waterloo Regional Airport. There are plenty of examples in Canada and I suspect in other countries. It probably has to do with the airport company wanting a short catchy name and the Government having to follow ICAO rules. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally I think our article names should reflect the names that the majority of people use to refer to the airport in English (WP:NAME says this too), and in most cases that's what the airport company uses. I agree that national agencies do tend to use archaic terms. Thanks/wangi 23:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article should be the name that the company running the airport uses and the main/first in the infobox. I don't think that the government name is archaic but from what I remember reading it's an international agreement. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you think the infobox need include all names, or just the "official" one? I think the other names would be better handled in the article proper where thay can be included into the prose with context. Thanks/wangi 01:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I prefer them in the box rather than the article because it seems to me that the article looks cleaner. But I have been adding them to both because some people seem to prefer that. But I'm not stuck to either one. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Airline Logos Dispayed Next to Airlines on Airport Pages
I think that Wikipedia should place the logo of an airline before the airlines' name is displayed on airport pages. Of course, if multiple airlines, they should be the same size. I think it will help people more quickly identify the airline of choice or details. Photos catch the eye of a person reading an article or something in these lines. It will make the page more quickly identified and will benefit to everyone. I have tried this idea with a few airports, but they were removed do to constraints. I did not like the way I displayed them, but it was the only thing I knew how to do. So, I ask that you consider and implement my idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golich17 (talk • contribs)
 * This was brought up once before. The main objections were that the large number of images would slow down the server, and more importantly, would probably not qualify as fair use. Dbinder (talk) 04:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I second Dbinder's comments. Also, the page will be cluttered and unencyclopedic with the images; definitely not a aesthetic enhancement. --physicq210 04:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We use the airline logos under fair use... (I think it's a bad idea) /wangi 08:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * To expand on that last comment... specifically I don't think we can argue this would be fair use: Fair use section #3, #8 and #10c. Thanks/wangi 10:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Systematic airport destination vandalism
I am noticing that in the last day or so there has been a bunch of systematic subtle vandalism attacking airport articles - apparently "the airport vandal," User: Philp the Moose. For instance, bogus non-existent service was added to University Park Airport and an entire section was added to Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport claiming that Phoenix would become a United Airlines hub. Please be on the lookout for this stuff - and I'm wholesale adding airport articles to my watchlist. FCYTravis 06:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Update: It's virtually all coming from AOL IPs, so blocking is pretty much hopeless. Put airport articles on your watchlists and diligently investigate ANY IP edit to them. Chances are it could be false. FCYTravis 23:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And watch out for personal attacks resulting from reverting. See if you want an example. --physicq210 01:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

He's at it again today. And I thought continually adding the same info into the same article would eventually be boring. --physicq210 23:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just caught 24.47.246.244 adding false information about JetBlue to a few articles. He kept adding false JetBlue information to MSP, by claiming they fly from there to BOS, JFK, LAS, and YUL... and claiming that YUL was going to be a new destination of JetBlue in the future.  Also adding to a few articles that JetBlue was going to be joining Star Alliance, and also adding unconfirmed (yet plausible) service to STL.  I gave him two warnings before he stopped, but I think he might have just changed his IP if he's AOL.  Keep on the lookout for this vandal or others like him in the future. --  SmthManly  / ManlyTalk  / ManlyContribs  15:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep an eye on 203.166.63.4 on the Melbourne Airport & Qantas articles, who has been adding speculative & timetable faux destinations to various airlines, and also has been adding domestic destinations to overseas airlines (although overseas airlines dont have rights to carry domestic pax). --Arnzy (whats up?)  09:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Keflavik or Reykjavik-Keflavik?
There have been recent discussion on the Glasgow Aiport discussion page on how to refer to the airport that goes by the IATA code of KEF Keflavík International Airport. Have a look at Talk:Glasgow_International_Airport. Should it be Keflavik or Reykjavik-Keflavik? Reykjavik has a closer airport RKV - Reykjavík Airport. My feeling is that I have no view providing it is consistent across Wikipedia. If the intention is to call it Reykjavik-Keflavik then the entry Keflavík International Airport should be re-titled accordingly and all the associated references should also be checked for consistency and adjusted as appropriate. -- Pencefn 22:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * From the name for RKV is 'Reykjavik Domestic' in Reykjavik. KEF maps to ' Keflavik International' in Reykjavik.  Vegaswikian 22:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So, what's the answer? This is of course a larger question--what do we cite, the name of the city served, or the name of the airport?  If the former, then it stays Reykjavik; if the latter, then Keflavik.  Is there a once-and-for-done standard on this? --Free-world 16:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Clearly we use the name of the airport. Hence McCarran International Airport and not Las Vegas International Airport, which happens to be a redirect. So maybe that is the answer.  Create the article under the airport name and do a redirect for the city or cities.  17:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not a discussion as to what the airport is to be called on the airports wikipedia page (wich of course should be the Anglified version of the airports name.) This discussions is as to what the destination should be listed to under the Airlines and destinations section of other airports pages (i.e. under the format Scandinavian Airline Systems (London-Heathrow, Oslo) etc) Arsenikk 07:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

First off Keflavík International Airport is at the right place — I don't think anyone thinks otherwise (after all that's what the airport and terminal operators call it). REK is an IATA city code which covers both KEF and RKV, thus it makes sense to list it as Reykjavik-Keflavik in destination lists. Likewise online-booking sites and travel agents will refer to it as Reykjavik. Thanks/wangi 08:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Under the destinations, it should be Reykjavik only, not Keflavik. Just like you'd put Las Vegas, and not McCarran.  Of course, in case of two airports, we specifcy, such as New York-LaGuardia, and New York-JFK.  In this case, it should be Reykjavik-Keflavik, as it is the airport serving Reykjavik, named Keflavik (after the town it is located in).  --  SmthManly  / ManlyTalk  / ManlyContribs  15:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There are two airports serving Reykjavík: Keflavík International Airport (international) and Reykjavík Airport (domestic). Thats why it has to be listed as Reykjavík-Keflavík. Arsenikk 16:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

No leading zeros on US runways
As with spelling and grammar on Wikipedia, there are various ways to number runways in the US and in the rest of the world. The FAA does not use leading zeros on any of its publications, nor do airports in the US commonly use a leading zero in the runway number. Given the precedent of using US spelling in US-themed articles and Commonwealth spelling in Commonwealth-themed articles, it seems reasonable that runways in the US should not be referred to with the leading zero. (It seems even more reasonable that runways anywhere should not be referred to with the leading zero unless the certifying authority refers to them with a leading zero in official publications.) In other words, if there's not a leading zero painted on the runway, Wikipedia shouldn't be artificially introducing one. Comments?--chris.lawson 22:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * When I flew through SFO and DEN last year I did not see the numbers painted on the Runway, however I did observe the signs on the entry taxiways. I am fairly certain that at SFO I observed runway 01R, and 06L at DEN. Do the signs on the taxiways correspond with the numbers painted on the associated runways? Pencefn 18:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't speak to the signs you saw directly, but Google Maps has pretty convincing evidence that KSFO and KDEN have single digits painted on the runways (although there is no runway 6 at KDEN).McNeight 18:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected about the DEN runways - was reading the wrong page in my notes. A quick check on the Denver International Airport page on WP shows the runways designated 7-25 and 8-26. No leading zeros on the single digits. Makes me doubt what I saw at SFO. Pencefn 20:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've never seen the leading zero painted on a runway in the US. I don't think that the leading zero is included on the taxiway signs either (see this pic from Tulsa International Airport for an example) — Mets 501  (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've also looked at satellite images from several different airports in the US: there is no leading zero pained on the runway, and there is no leading zero in what is printed on the ground at the runway hold line. — Mets 501 (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The leading zeros are used in the rest of the world, however, from what I can tell; they are even printed on the runway. — Mets 501 (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The example signage in the AIM does not depict leading zeros on any runway direction signs or runway holding position signs, so I rather doubt there are leading zeros in the signage at KSFO.--chris.lawson 21:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

For an illustration of splitting hairs and making a point take a look at Talk:Blue Grass Airport. I would appreciate it if somebody could read over that discussion and then revert the article back to using the USGS aerial photo. I mean OMG the image is annotated with "08", OMG!! Thanks/wangi 09:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's simply incorrect. There is no good reason for a known and admitted inaccuracy to exist in a Wikipedia article. Your assumption of WP:POINT on my part is unwarranted and uncalled for. I would like for someone to review the discussion, keeping in mind that the article will likely receive a great deal of scrutiny by the media, experts, and that Wangi admits the image is incorrectly labeled yet insists on keeping it. 65.127.231.6 09:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not inaccurate, it's a style issue. /wangi 11:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Clawson: I agree. American airports don't have the leading zeroes (per the FAA) so we shouldn't be using them in the wikipedia entries about FAA governed airports. The KLEX/Bluegrass entry (and its airport picture) should NOT have leading zeroes, since its an american airport and the FAA doesn't use them. That picture shouldn't be there until the leading zeroes are taken out. I'll refrain from commenting on the admin edit warring. Mexcellent 12:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've removed the leading zeros from that image and re-inserted it. — Mets 501 (talk) 12:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Do we have consensus here that no leading zeros should be in the runway names for US airports? Just making sure, and then I can run my bot or something through the articles in Category:Airports in the United States and remove all the leading zeros. — Mets 501 (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would say yes remove the leading zeros from them unless a reliable source proves otherwise. I've also updated the instructions at WikiProject Airports/infobox to cover it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I tried the replacement regex on a couple of airports: works perfectly. Just waiting for a couple more nods before mass changing them. — Mets 501  (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Updating the infobox guide makes sense, I don't see the need to mass update however (I mean, are you going to "correct" the non-US ones to include a zero too?). Thanks/wangi 16:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Mass updating is no more work for me than pressing the start button and letting my bot run. If we know for sure which other countries always use the leading zero, I could make sure all of those articles have the leading zero, but I'm not going to do that for now. — Mets 501  (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

WHOA, hang on there, folks! Please don't start any automated process unless it will not affect U.S. Air Force Bases (which use the infobox as well). USAF does use leading zeros for runway designations, and they are correctly used in the infoboxes for AFBs (see Wright-Patterson Air Force Base for an example.) These airports have FAA/ICAO designations as well, and some AFBs, at least in the past, have hosted commercial airline service. I'm not sure about Naval Air Stations but will check that out; I knew about AFBs since I used to work on USAF projects as a contractor. --MCB 18:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't start yet. If I exclude pages in Category:United States Air Force bases, Category:United States Coast Guard Air Stations, Category:United States Navy air stations, Category:United States Army airfields, and Category:United States Navy air stations, that should be fine, right? — Mets 501  (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think so, but that relies on pages being correctly categorized, which they should be, but aren't always. Is it possible to check for "Type: Military" in that field of the infobox? (I don't know what sort of conditionals or lookups bots are capable of, sorry.) Thanks, --MCB 00:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course! :-) I can exclude that category and any pages that match the regex: . — Mets 501  (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good -- thanks, Mets! --MCB 06:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Make sure that you don't forget to include airports on the non-contiguous US mainland. Hawaii and Alaska's ICAO codes are prefixed with P, not K. Hope it helps make the automation more useful. :) Thadius856 17:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I'm going to request permission to start the run, since no one here objections. — Mets 501 (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It's all done! No US airport articles should have leading zeros on the runway angles now. — Mets 501 (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. 'preciate it.--chris.lawson 00:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Found a few more and removed them. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Air crash AFDs
A user has been nominating for deletion several articles on airline crashes in the United States - allegedly, they're non-notable. Those with an opinion either way may want to see Articles for deletion/Mohawk Airlines Flight 411, Articles for deletion/1963 Rochester air crash, etc. FCYTravis 02:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I noticed that the editors clamoring for deletion are the same three editors. --physicq210 02:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is a list of all the ones I found. Please add any others I missed.
 * Articles for deletion/Airwork Flight 23
 * Articles for deletion/1963 Rochester air crash
 * Articles for deletion/Mohawk Airlines Flight 405
 * Articles for deletion/Mohawk Airlines Flight 411
 * --MCB 03:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The result of all these nominations was Keep Blood red sandman 16:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Notations for seasonal entries
I was just talking to User:Andrewb729 about his recent changes to some Florida Airports, and maybe others, which change the seasonal notation from [seasonal] next to a destionation, to a footnote type format where seasonal is at the bottom and those destinations have a small number one next to them. I reverted him and he argued it; I've noticed some others have also reverted him, so I figured, after speaking to him a bit, to come here and propose it on his behalf, since I think it's a good idea. What do you all think of changing the [seasonal] ort (seasonal) notations next to destinations to the footnote format? -- SmthManly  / ManlyTalk  / ManlyContribs  21:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Naming for FAA LID 2Q3
I've been working my way down the List of airports in California, adding new stub articles for Reliever/GA Airports in the order they're listed. However, this airport has a strange naming and I'm not sure what normal convention would be:

FAA LID 2Q3
 * From aforementioned list: Yolo County - Davis/Woodland/Winters Airport
 * From AIRNAV.com: Yolo County-Davis (Woodland) Winters Airport
 * From Airport Master Record (FAA Form 1050): Yolo County-Davis/Woodland/Winters (omitting the world Airport)

I created the article stub at Yolo County - Davis/Woodland/Winters Airport, but will hold off on creating redirects in case it needs to be moved. If changing name, please update the where the list links to. Thanks! (P.S. - Is there a more frequently-used place for discussion such as this? I can't find any places.) Thadius856 00:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll leave you to do it, but i'd name it Yolo County Airport and create various redirects to that. That name seems to be the most common used, see for example:
 * Davis, California
 * http://www.daviswiki.org/Yolo_County_Airport
 * http://www.sacog.org/airport/clups/yoloclup.pdf
 * http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?mapit=Map+It&size=s&s=25&lat=38.579073&lon=-121.856632
 * And this is probably the best place for these questions! Thanks/wangi 00:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And going by Google Maps "YOLO COUNTY" is written on the runway too! :) /wangi 00:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It will be done! That's what I was thinking, myself. :D Thanks. Thadius856 01:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A few comments on FAA airport data:
 * FAA data generally omits the word "Airport" from the end of the facility name, but does have a separate field for facility type (i.e. airport, heliport, seaplane base). Other web sites based on FAA data will usually add "Airport" to the name, sometimes creating incorrect names such as Millington Regional Jetport Airport or Jack Mc Namara Field Airport.  AirNav has corrected this for "Airpark" and other occurrences of "Jetport", but not for "Field" as of this time.
 * FAA data often uses a pair of forward slashes in place of parentheses, thus LONG BEACH /DAUGHERTY FIELD/ from the FAA becomes Long Beach Airport (Daugherty Field) at AirNav. Since the conversion process is automated, names that should include two forward slashes get converted incorrectly.
 * Zyxw 08:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Request Article
I can't figure out how to request an article. The link on the portal points to a parent, one where "Air Travel" apparently is now missing. :( How would I make a request for "Rubberized Friction Seal Coat" (RFSC)? Sorry for the newbishness. Thadius856 02:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * On wikipedia check out Requested articles. Vegaswikian 00:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Done, requested. Thanks! Thadius856 19:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Australian airport stubs
I've put in a request for an Australian airport stub to be created. Since the request is a part of WikiProject Stub sorting, I have no scruples in mentioning it here to draw support. After all, not many of our participants would see it there anywho. Tell me me if you guys think it's a bad idea or not... I'm not sure if it'd be preferential to subdivide it like we did with Canadian airport stubs or not.

Request for australia-airport-stub and Cat:Australian airport stubs

Information included
While just removing the leading zero I noticed that some airports have, what seems to me, unnecessary duplication of information in articles. An example of this (and my removal of it) is here. As you can see the runway data and map links were in both the infobox and the article. I have been removing them as I find them but if it contains information, as the Beaver Island Airport did, in article not covered then I left it in. What does anyone else feel about this? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If the info in the article gives no more information than the infobox, I am in favor of removing it. — Mets 501 (talk) 02:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry it took so long to get back to commenting here. I, myself, do not remove the runways under "Facilities" in the article. This area of the article itself gives runway widths, which I feel are very important. Were it possible to do runway widths in the infobox, however, I'd likely agree with you guys. thadius856talk 18:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible bot work
I just asked Mets501 if his bot could do some more work. He says that it could but requires consensus first. The first type can be seen at Barnstable Municipal Airport. The runway should be in the style XX/XX and not XX-XX. The second I don't have an example for right at hand, but runways should be listed as 10/28 and not 28/10. The lower number should be first. Does anyone have any objections? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not. I haven't seen any problems with the last series of edits by his bot. I'll support as long as it's an attended bot. I'm just a li'l edgy about full automation. Thadius856 09:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It would not be an attended bot. Rest assured, however, that the bot would only change a dash to a slash in the runways or fix the number order, and do nothing else. — Mets 501  (talk) 11:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. If you feel that it's safe, I'll trust your judgment. Be bold! Thadius856 19:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly safe: I just ran through almost all US Airport articles removing the leading zero from runway designations, and there were no issues. — Mets 501 (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No objections: starting now. — Mets 501 (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Air Force Bases
I was under the impression that Air Force Bases were to be treated the same way as other airports. The infobox on Blytheville Air Force Base seems hand-made and custom to me. Should it be replaced with the standard infobox? Thadius856 00:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's sort of a special case since the airport is no longer named that, and is no longer an AFB. There is an article for Arkansas International Airport with the standard infobox. Personally, I think the Blytheville AFB article should not have an infobox at all, since it is, or should be, just a historical article about the AFB era there. I'm also wondering if the two articles shouldn't just be merged, with the Blythedale article forming the History section of the Arkansas International article. --MCB 04:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Listing helicopter airlines
Exactly how do we list helicopter airlines at an airport? Do we just list them under airlines or do we use a new heading? How about if the company runs sightseeing operations that don't land at a destination? Vegaswikian 07:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly sure how to list them, but I'd say that if they are sightseeing or have no destination airport that they should be listed as local flights, similar to the method for logging such flights in logbooks. thadius856talk 18:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Using Geolinks tag
I've loaded up all the airports in the United States (as of 2 days ago) and ran through them all, making sure each infobox uses the °N, °W format for coordinates and converting them if it didn't. I'm running AWB through all of the articles again, just in case I missed any. It looks hopeful so far that I haven't. I plan to start on Canadian airports, then finishing off the NorthAm airports (Carribean, etc) after that.

My question is this: since I'm already going through them, should we be using the tag at the bottom of articles? It inserts a coordinates link right above the infobox. Personally, I've been adding it when I create articles, but I'd like to get a consensus. thadius856talk 19:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This relates to my question above and I would say remove it and I have been doing that. I think that it's a duplication of information that is already included. Also, I feel that the extra link above the box really makes the page look untidy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CambridgeBayWeather (talk • contribs)


 * Sounds great. I just finished running through and fixing the rest of the coor dms conversion work for every county in the world, except Canada, which you said you have done. I'm sure I mised a few, and there's no doubt that there's many without infoboxes at all. However, I'll start my run of removing geolinks from US airports when I wake up, about 8 hours from now. thadius856talk 07:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Leading zeros on US military runways
After looking through the military airbases and then the satellite images I found the following runways all contain leading zeros:
 * Edwards Air Force Base
 * Elmendorf Air Force Base
 * NAS Whiting Field - North
 * NAS Whiting Field - South
 * Naval Air Station Pensacola
 * Westover Air Reserve Base / Metropolitan Airport

The last one I changed the infobox as it was missing the zero.

The following satellite photos shows that the runways of the following do not have a leading zero:
 * Bucholz Army Airfield
 * Cairns Army Airfield
 * Naval Air Facility El Centro
 * Naval Air Station Fallon
 * Naval Air Station Point Mugu
 * Sierra Vista Municipal Airport
 * Southern California Logistics Airport

None of them have been changed as I wanted someone else to double check first.
 * Changed them all. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Biggs Army Airfield does not have a leading zero, I think. There is an aircraft right over the runway number but if it was two digits then I think it would be visible.

These last four may or may not have zeros but it's hard to tell from the satellite photos:
 * Grissom Air Reserve Base
 * Laguna Army Airfield
 * Little Rock Air Force Base
 * Wheeler-Sack Army Airfield

CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Oceanians rejoice!
Okay, so rejoice is a bit of a strong word. However, a week ago, I proposed a new stub category for Austalian airports. While it passed in a modified version (Oceania stub and cat, Australia stub upmerged to Oceania cat), I'm happy to say that they're now up and functional. You can now use Austalia-airport-stub and Oceania-airport-stub.

But wait, it gets better! While I was stub sorting them into their new categories, I noticed that there were over 55 of each type, more than I had found during the initial roundup. There were enough to justify making the Australia airport stubs their own category.

Hope it helps everybody out a bit. Yes, even the... *shudder*... Kiwi's. (Just kidding, hehe :) thadius856talk 04:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Link Farms
Is it just me, or has anybody else noticed that many of the larger airports are turning into link farms? I'm ecstatic that I haven't seen linked destinations (yet), but sometimes the wikilinking is getting way out of hand. Check it out... thadius856talk 21:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I find myself in article removing the extra links quite often. I hate them when I'm doing a dab cleanup since they can be hard to find.  However when I'm editing I sometimes create the problem since I'm only editing a section and forget that something might be linked in a previous section.  Also, I don't know what the exact policy is when you include a list.  It seems to be acceptable to link terms again in a list so that the list appears uniform.  Don't now if that is policy or not, but it does seem to be done a lot. Vegaswikian 21:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My personal rule of thumb is to remove links if they occur more than once in a section. As a general rule, a term should only be linked once. However, it can be repeated if the first occurance was much earlier in the article (in case the reader forgot, I suppose). I don't see a possiblity of the reader "forgetting" before reaching the very next line. If they wanted to click American Airlines, they would have done it the first time, so repeating it for the next 4 lines only makes the article harder to read. (In the case of infoboxes, if it's linked in both the infobox and the article, the article should retain the link, even through the infobox typically occurs first.) thadius856talk 21:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Air Algérie destinations and related articles
I have been reverting edits by 200.122.86.50 for a while now, since this unidentified user keeps adding destinations without providing sources for them. And as far as I know, these future destinations were not even announced by Air Algérie itself. The aforementioned user also adds Air Algérie destinations to certain US airports, so I'd appreciate if other people would watch this user as well. Elektrik Blue 82 21:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you put a warning on their talk page? I know it is an anon, but ... Vegaswikian 21:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd agree, as per Vegaswikian. They still get message alerts. Myself, I had an anon user flag one of my watchlist articles prod under WP:Notability (software). Pissed me off, but talk pages still get the job done for anon users. thadius856talk 22:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

New Participant Tinkerers Presenting Results
I received the template invitation on the talk page for Christmas Valley Airport (which I wrrote because I think CV is a pretty cool place). Anyhoozle, I hammered it out. Have a look as to whether that's what you are after. --Duff 10:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

External Link
Please consider adding an external link for the information on airports my company (FlightStats) publishes. Like FlightAware we have FAA based flight status for airports in the US. Unlike FlightAware we are global (covering a vast majority of the world's airports) and also have multiple data sources that allow us to show gate and runway times (FlightAware just shows runway).

We also have some other content that we publish. We publish weather and real-time airport performance for most of the world's airports. We have security wait times (TSA based) for airports within the US but we also show historical trends which the TSA does not. We also have FAA delay information for the US airports, but unlike the FAA also publish historical delay information (including which flights were affected by the delay).

Here are some sample URLs so that you can see what we offer: airport outside US - Narita Airport, airport inside US - O'Hare International Airport, full flight departures page O'Hare departures, ORD Security Wait Times, ATL Airport Delays — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottHopkins (talk • contribs)


 * Thanks for the URL's. While I don't speak for my fellow editors, I can say that it's appreciated that you didn't start link spamming articles or modifying it into the templates. Here's an excerpt from WP:SPAM:


 * Review your intentions. Wikipedia is not a space for personal promotion or the promotion of products, services, Web sites, fandoms, ideologies, or other memes. If you're here to tell readers how great something is, or to get exposure for an idea or product that nobody's heard of yet, you're in the wrong place. Likewise, if you're here to make sure that the famous Wikipedia cites you as the authority on something (and possibly pull up your sagging PageRank) you'll probably be disappointed.


 * Disclaimer aside, I took a look at your site. It does have some useful information, but it's riddled with way more ads than I'd like - 1 large letterbox flash ad and 3 Google Ad syndication boxes. If there were more content, like that of AirNav, I might be able to wrestle my conscience into submission... but as it stands, I'm going to hold off from linking to it. Thanks anywho. :) thadius856talk 21:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Bangda Airport
What's the correct category for this, "Airports in the People's Republic of China" or "Airports in the Tibet Autonomous Region". The first exists but the second does not. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say both into a China parent, but that'd likely offend. Tricky situation, but are there really airports in Tibet? thadius856talk 16:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed change to AirportProject template
I was just looking around WikiProject: Military History's project banner and was thinking that our banner could use an update similar to theirs. What would you guys this? Would a class and assessment system be useful? I sure think so.

I whipped something together and this is what I ended up with. Feel free to leave comments about it. Yes, there are red links, but those would be created if the template change was approved by everybody here (e.x. - class scale, assessment guidelines, etc).

 So... how's it look? thadius856talk 20:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks good, but I wouldn't have the "this article has not yet been assessed" stuff if the article doesn't have ratings. If it has ratings, let the parameters show, otherwise hide them. — Mets 501  (talk) 00:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's definitely possible, though my feeling was that if it was unassessed, it would have a much better chance of being assessed, both my those who are and aren't participants of the WikiProject. It would also raise awareness of the fact that we would have an assessment scale, possibly drawing new participants. thadius856talk 02:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Airline destinations AfD
Airline destinations is proposed for deletion. If interested, drop in on the discussion. Vegaswikian 06:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Lasham Airfield
A bot has classified the article on Lasham Airfield as needing a clean-up as part of the airports project. I have no objection to anyone improving this article, but the possibilities are limited in this case. Lasham is not an airport and never has been. It is owned by a gliding club which allows a company called ATC to bring in Boeings for maintenance a few times a week. It is not used for any commercial flights. The suggested contents in your project page therefore do not seem to apply. You may wish the delete the tags that have just been added. However I will add any further information that you can propose. JMcC 07:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I saw this after I saw the tag removal. I restored the tag because my feeling is that hte project should cover all aerodromes and not just airports. By the way it's a human tagging them not a bot. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Airport stations
I'm being bold and creating my first table. Anyway, i was wondering if it is a good idea that i created a table showing which airport is served by what station and how. It is right now a user sub-page. Can someone give an opinion on this? I will eventually add links, just to note. I am also about to add Cardiff.

See User:Simply south/Airport stations

If all goes well this will be another template. Or is it too long?

I know i also need to rearrange the table alphabetically.

Opinions?

Simply south 12:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Likely too long as a template. Also does this cross the line into a travel guide and not an encylopedia?  Vegaswikian 03:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Possibly. I didn't think about that. In that case, maybe i should list the stations which link to airports, but not in a template (or is this still going along the line of a travel guide, which i am suspecting?). Simply south 11:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)