Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Codeshare sections in many articles.

I have noticed that the majority of articles on here that list the airlines codeshares are not sourced. As a group we need to work together to resolve this. I have also noticed that the majority of article list the alliance the partner airline is a member of. Is this needed? I am failing to see why this is significant? Have a i missed something? Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that disclosing the airline alliance is completely unnecessary.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, the codeshare sections must be sourced and some of the sources are clearly out of date. Putting the alliances next to the airline is not necessary as it can be found on the airline page itself. However, some people are putting airlines in the codeshare section that belong in the same alliance that do not truely codeshare. If the airlines are in the same alliance and they do indeed codeshare, then it can be listed. If they are not, then don't list. Belonging to an alliance doesn't automatically mean they codeshare with each other, if one is a member of a airline's frequent flyer program you can earn miles on the alliance airline you are flying with(i.e. if you are member of United's MileagePlus and you fly on Lufthansa, you can earn United MileagePlus miles on any Lufthansa flight). Snoozlepet (talk) 04:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Same here, I think the alliance for the codeshare airline is unnecessary. —Compdude¹²³ 04:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, I was thinking of adding a section for "interline agreements" as numerous airline have or have signed interline agreements with each but not codeshare with one another. Let me know what you think. Snoozlepet (talk) 04:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same things? Don't interline agreements often involve most airlines and other travel service providers? Also is how airlines compensate employees something encyclopedic? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I dont see why interline agreements should be there at all. --JetBlast (talk) 09:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Please bear in mind WP:NOTTRAVEL.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

How would be proceed with actually getting something done please? --JetBlast (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Nobody appears to be objecting about your codeshare comments JetBlast so you just need to add something in Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Airlines) about how codeshares are added and that the alliance is not needed. Doesnt appear at the moment a concensus to add interline information. MilborneOne (talk) 08:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm against including the alliance, as that info can be easily found at each airline's page. As to codesharing information, many people don't understand that only secondary carriers, i.e. the ones that actually operates the codeshare service, are to be included in the list. Furthermore, it is a commonly held belief that being a part of an alliance automatically makes all flights codeshared with the rest of the members of that alliance.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

List of International Lease Finance Corporation customers

I've nominated the article for deletion. The way I see it, it fails notability and is completely unreferenced.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

List of Hawaiian Airlines destinations

Why the article has been moved to the current name rather than being named in the standard Hawaiian Airlines destinations form? I've moved it back to the former name.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It probably had the "List of..." prefix because our two featured lists do it that way. Personally I prefer saying "List of Hawaiian Airlines destinations" rather than "Hawaiian Airlines destinations." —Compdude¹²³ 21:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

We agreed not to raise the FL matter when we discussed the new format for destination lists. In my opinion, the same applies here.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand, but the reason why I pointed out the featured lists was because maybe someone saw how the featured lists were named and decided that other articles should follow suit. I don't care about the naming format that much though. —Compdude¹²³ 21:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I already knew that ;) --Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes we all hate the featured lists and I don't really care whether or not the destination list articles have "List of" in their title. I prefer it that way but at the end of the day, I don't really care that much. —Compdude¹²³ 04:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Number of aircraft on order in infoboxes

An IP user has been adding the number of aircraft on order in many airline articles. As far as I know, these numbers are not to be included there. I believes(he) is the same user that made these edits. I don't have the time to revert their edits. Can anyone please take a look at them?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I reverted some of the last IP edits, yet not all of them. I was wondering if there is any possibility for us (i.e. the most active editors on airline pages) to start watching a few articles, say ten or so, in order to avoid these things to happen in the future. Just a proposal to keep these vandals aside. The task I propose is not to maintain such articles (of course, that will be very much appreciated), but to easily detect misleading edits. Should the proposal bear fruit, each editor can add here the list of articles s(he) will start watching so as to not duplicate efforts. Any thoughts?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking maybe add a hidden note to articles saying "don't put orders here" but I don't know how many people read such things. On aircraft articles, next to the infobox image there's a note saying "In-flight photos are preferred, and if you want to change the photo please get consensus on the talk page." Yet people still unilaterally change the photo (and sometimes even delete the note!). So I am not sure how well this would work. —Compdude¹²³ 21:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hidden notes dont work always, defiant contributers ignore them and add or remove information as they please. 139.190.137.93 (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that's true. It's better just to keep an eye on articles and revert order-adding to the infobox. Having orders in the infobox too means that we have to keep the orders up-to-date in two places in the article, and that's kinda annoying. Better just to have aircraft in service in the infobox. —Compdude¹²³ 18:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles nominated for deletion

This time I'd like to draw your attention to the following deletion proposals. The following unsourced pages were created by the same editor:

• FlyJetKZ
• Government of Kazakhstan Airline
• KazAirJet
• Zhezkazgan Air

--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed that only Zhezkazgan Air appears to have had an AFD page created; the others have redlinks in the AFD notice, nor are they listed in the one AFD page. You might want to fix that. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 01:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The links were red before, but now they seem to have been fixed. —Compdude¹²³ 19:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Just nominated K2 SmartJets for deletion; deletion discussion is here. —Compdude¹²³ 04:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

maps at Air India destinations

does the article really need the maps showing past and present routes when the list already has that information? inspector (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I kind of like the maps, put I don't think they need to be so big. —Compdude¹²³ 18:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Ministro Pistarini International Airport

There has been a wave of unsourced edits regarding Turkish Airlines' future service to the airport. I'm over my WP:3RR. I've already requested protection for the page. Can anyone please take a look at the article and revert the unsourced addition? Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted it as there is no source or official announcement. Also, Buenos Aires doesn't appear to be in the airline's booking engine (and i went to the Turkish Airlines's global website and no Argentina website). Snoozlepet (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

IP editors keep adding TK's services in an unsourced fashion. The page hasn't been protected yet. Anyone, please revert, as I cannot do so because of WP:3RR--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I have removed it again but the page was already protected but with an unreliable source and as I have said before Buenos Aires is currently not in the booking engine on their website. Snoozlepet (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Third-party booking engines are now able to book TK15 IST-GRU-EZE. HkCaGu (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's not enough evidence, as we cannot use a booking engine as a source.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Why? Information is required to be verifiable, not "sourced". This has always been the spirit of destination listings. Countless edits are based on published schedules and booking engines (which are not "source-able"), often in edit summaries. This is in contrast to editors not explaining their edits, which we hate to see. HkCaGu (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The following is included at the lead section of WP:SOURCE:

“ All the material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. ”

--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

destinations lists being left halfway in table format

Some editors are in the process of converting text style lists of atlest 4 or 5 airlines maybe more, to the now old / rejected style table format with flags etc. and are leaving them halfway for others to complete, please deal with this as the articles have remained in this part table part text format, unedited for days or weeks in other cases. 139.190.137.93 (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Philippine Airlines and Korean Air are two. inspector (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I can provide you with two editors doing the above: ANG99 and 202.36.245.23, which is a sockpuppet of the same user.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I sent ANG99 a message giving some pointers on how to convert destination lists to the table format, and have even suggested copying the lists to his sandbox and working on them there. Also pointed out that we are using a new table format. Hope he picks up on this. —Compdude¹²³ 18:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Also pointed out that US Airways, Air China are also two that are left halfway. I'll point out some more if i spot any. My suggestion is to convert the whole list to table or leave like it originally was so anyone who can edit it can do it.Snoozlepet (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

JAL was another I have reverted it to text again. China Eastern Airlines and China Airlines are in part table, part text style too.139.190.137.93 (talk) 12:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Despite some poking and prodding, ANG99 is still not using the correct format for airline destinations, as evidenced by his recently-converted United Airlines destinations. I'm trying to post messages on his talk page, but he's clearly ignoring them. There's no way on earth he can't see that he's gotten a message on his talk page; it always says "You have new messages" when you go on Wikipedia AND you get an email saying your talkpage has been modified. He is clearly ignoring our messages, considering the fact that he's been told countless times to provide edit summaries for the past two years, and still doesn't ever type one in. —Compdude¹²³ 03:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The things you tell us is nothing new. Their talk page is plagued of messages requesting him/her to respond to the messages left there...--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Unverifiable statistics at many airline articles

This user has been adding traffic statistics like this one into many ailine articles (and has done so using a railroad template). These edits have already been discussed at the user's talk page as hard to be verified, but I decided to bring the discussion also here. Indeed, the info added is valuable, but my main concern is that their edits cannot be verified by an online source. Can you please drop some thoughts? Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no requirement that sources be verifiable online, or even easy to source. He provides a source, and it sounds legit, so at first glance it passes WP:V. Note WP:SOURCEACCESS. I could argue that adding information from difficult to access sources is one of the most valuable things Wikipedia can do because it makes that information much more widely available. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Many sources for things on Wikipedia are from books, and you can't always find those on a website like Google Books. It's kind of annoying when you can't verify a source, but you just have to assume good faith and trust that the source really does back up the info. —Compdude¹²³ 04:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Even if there's no requirement, do try to see if material or portions of it are online. I like using Google Books whenever possible. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I use Google books too, but it does omit portions of the book. Sometimes small portions, and sometimes a majority of the book isn't there. —Compdude¹²³ 18:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Continental Micronesia

Does Continental Micronesia, Inc. still exist as a corporate entity? United Airlines lists the "Continental Micronesia" division as having around 1,000 employees WhisperToMe (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

And is it still called Continental Micronesia even though CO is history? Or is it now called United Micronesia? The name might have changed. —Compdude¹²³ 18:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The United Airlines page refers to the employee group as "Continental Micronesia": - It also refers to Chelsea (the catering company) as being an employee group too http://ir.unitedcontinentalholdings.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=83680&p=irol-homeProfile WhisperToMe (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I wonder what the business license says. From what I've heard, the ticketing division is going away, and the cargo division will be contracted out. But there's still an entity managing the counters and the crew, and there should still be a business license. And I don't know if payroll is local--but the company must transmit income tax withholdings to GovGuam (while FICA goes to IRS). If Pacific Bell Telephone Company still exists, Continental Micronesia may still be around. HkCaGu (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

In-flight services

Just removed some of the recently added In-flight services sections in a number of airlines as not being unusual or encyclopedic. On the presumption that this is not a travel guide the fact that airlines serve drinks and food and let you listen/watch stuff is not notable. I could understand if the offering was unusual but a normal airline is assumed to do normal airline stuff without detailing every part of it, including I have seen seat numbering schemes!. Just looking for a sanity check. MilborneOne (talk) 10:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• There are cases where service info, especially changes in service, is encyclopedic. Many news articles discussed it when Continental Airlines dropped free meals back in 2010 WhisperToMe (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of airline articles

Just had some regional airlines I created deleted. There was no discussion. In any case, obviously it is a waist of my time contributing to Wikipedia and it is time to contribute somewhere else instead. If anyone here believes value in having these I am certain there is some way to restore them through a complex appeal process, but I am to tied to do that so I will leave it to someone else.

Deletion log); 09:31 . . RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Osprey Wings ‎(A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) (Deletion log); 09:24 . . RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Voyage Air ‎(A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) (Deletion log); 09:18 . . RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Courtesy Air ‎(A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

-- M@sk (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Have you attempted to contact the user? Ask him for clarification and re-create the articles after he tells you how to remedy it. Since they say "A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject" you ask him how it did not fulfill A7 and What you need to do to recreate the articles. You here to learn from this. — WhisperToMe (talk) 01:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Talk:Courtesy Air was not the correct place for discussion since the article itself had already been deleted. It is not at all weird that you were not notified of the deletion - you have a watchlist - use it. Regarding your airline stubs: slow down - create one proper fleshed-out article at a time, eg. you could not even manage basic stuff like date of foundation or IATA and ICAO codes. But above all you must provide links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. When you have created one, submit it via AfC. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Wanted: GA reviewer for United Airlines

Hello, I put up United Airlines for GA review. I'd like someone to review it, so if one of you would like to do so, that would be great. Just don't take five months. Thanks, Compdude¹²³ 18:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I intended to review the article but the five-month comment discourages me...--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to give you a rough time about that! —Compdude¹²³ 18:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You convinced me, I'll do it...--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Jetstreamer. I'd be happy to do a GA review for you; just ask me. —Compdude¹²³ 18:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't mention it. Will do it as fast as I can.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Yellowknife Airport and Buffalo Air

Would like some more opinions at Talk:Buffalo Airways#Accident and incidents. It affects both articles. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Airport-des-list: city and airport

Hello everyone, I wanted to propose to change some city-airport's name on destinations list destinations shown airports page.

Current name	Proposed name	Notes
Houston-Intercontinental	Houston-George Bush	"Houston George Bush", in my opinion, it is more clear than "Houston Intercontinental" because it shows what is the airport, not the pattern. Some might with "Houston", believing that it is what the Intercontinental.
Johannesburg	Johannesburg-OR Tambo	Too many times OR Tambo International Airport is simply called "Johannesburg". Many people do not know that the South African city has two airports and therefore only "Johannesburg" IMHO is very ambiguous.
Tel Aviv-Ben Gurion	Tel Aviv	Tel Aviv has only one airport, why it indicate with the name too? We show only the city, as we doing with other cities. ("Ben Gurion International Airport" is incorrect, because the airport name is "Ben Gurion Airport". It shown on its website)
Bucharest-Henri Coandă	Bucharest	After the closure of Aurel Vlaicu International Airport, Henri Coandă remained the only Bucharest's airport. Why continue to show as Bucharest has got two airports?

What do you think? --Wind of freedom (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You may want to provide your opinion here regarding many moves made by you recently.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The full name of IAH is George Bush Intercontinental Airport. Previously, it was known as Houston Intercontinental Airport. Thus the use of Houston-Interncontinental to designate IAH. I will note that the graphic banner on the top of the airport's web page and the navigation bar that shows all of Houston's airports refer to it only as "Intercontinental". -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Tel Aviv, the city has 2 airports with passenger service: Ben Gurion and Sde Dov while Ben Gurion serves as the main airport for Tel Aviv while Sde Dov is a secondary airport serving mainly domestic flights. 166.205.55.44 (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

there are also 2 airports in Johannesburg with pax service: OR Tambo and Lanseria. 00:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.55.44 (talk)

Shouldn't this be mentioned on Wikiproject Airports? This doesn't have much to do with airline pages; this is about airport names. —Compdude¹²³ 16:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Already at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#Airport-des-list:_city_and_airport. Snoozlepet (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

unsourced reference?

I edited Turkish airlines destination list to add Colombo along with a an image of an internal airline document listing new destinations to be launched with dates and jetstreamer has removed it calling it unsourced, how is it unsourced when its from turkish airlines and so what if its in photo form? should I also stay away from adding references by taking photos of schedules from OAD guide book? 175.110.204.102 (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It is evident that you do not have clear the concept of what a reliable source is.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, those destinations (including Colombo) are not in the booking engine nor on TK's website. Snoozlepet (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Not all sources are reliable. I did a simple reality check and found your source to be either outdated or simply unreliable. New routes that are supposedly a couple months away and still not bookable do not make sense. And also without real schedules we don't know if the return date is the same as the outbound date. HkCaGu (talk) 05:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Ethiopian Airlines

The article has been nominated for GA reassessment. You can give your questions, comments, concerns, etc. here. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Otrag

We need an article, lest we already have one under another name, for OTRAG Range Air Services. Tony Three toes Martin aloha! 22:05, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

• Add Denver Air Connection to that....Antonio Old Man Martin et tu? 03:10, December 31, 2012 (UTC)

Why? Are they notable? YSSYguy (talk) 03:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, Denver Air Connection was featured in a Diane Keaton movie I was watching just today, Darling Companion, and upon looking it up, it's a real airline that is mentioned in several web pages, plus just the fact it IS in a movie itself makes it kind of notable at least. On the other hand I guess that maybe it does not need a stand alone article, maybe we can add that to it's section at Key Lime Air. On the other hand, OTRAG Range Air Service seems to have been involved carrying NASA cargo, and it is also well-covered on internet sites. [1]Antonio Fart Man Martin et tu? 11:14, December 31, 2012 (UTC)

Brighton City Airways

Recently changed Brighton City Airways to make it more encyclopedic and to make it clear that it is not actually an airline. The article originator has reverted it back into a promotional piece for the virtual airline. I have changed it back to the "wikified" version but appreciate if others can keep an eye on it, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Wind of freedom (again)

I'd like to draw your attention again to the behaviour of the user above. Besides unilaterally moving airport articles ([2], [3] and [4] are just three examples), the user is now striking on airline destination articles, like Ethiopian Airlines destinations ([5], [6] and [7]), where s(he) is separating the table for passenger and cargo destinations. Can we have a thorough discussion regarding this user? I find their unilateral changes disruptive for both this project and WP:AIRPORT.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm undecided about this specific formatting, but noting cargo-only destinations for airlines that operate separate cargo-only flights, strikes me as a reasonable thing to do. As far as whether the user's history of unilateral major edits and page moves requires disciplinary action, that's something that I think belongs more in an administrative area rather than in a WikiProject discussion. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a punishment of the user, but for him/her to be told by others (I already did it) that the project in particular, and Wikipedia in general, is built by consensus. However, their behaviour is close to WP:POINT.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The seperation of the cargo flights looks fine. Not to sure about the names. The common name should take precedence. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Cathay Pacific

The date format in the Cathay Pacific article keep being changed by an IP and has been reverted a few times. I have semi-protected the page for a month but as I reverted one of the changes I am looking for any other admin working on the project to check my actions, thanks. Note the latest IP involved have been blocked by others as a sock of the "Rogers Canada Date Format sock" ! MilborneOne (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll request a protection again.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI: This editor using Canada's Rogers Communications IPs had been blocked progressively and concurrently nine times over two IPs, going back to February 2011, and the last blocks expired February 2012. He had come back several times over the past 11 months changing DMY dates to MDY. See Block log of 174.112.122.52 and Block log of 99.254.158.227. HkCaGu (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Fleet - New orders/MoU

Is there already a guideline as to when an airline's order should be added to its Fleet listing? I bring this up in relation to the Hawaiian Airlines page where their recently announced Memorandum of Understanding has been included as an Order in the Fleet table. It is noted that it is an MoU, but it is slightly misleading to mark it as an order, when that is not the case yet.

I would suggest that aircraft commitments only be included in the table once its has been added to the airframer's order book or been officially announced by the airline. Until then, I think it should belong as a note within the Fleet section - as I originally contributed. Bthebest (talk) 11:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It's exactly as you say. This is not an order yet, so it shouldn't be included as such in the fleet table.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree, it is not an order until they have signed, no reason why they should be included. MilborneOne (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

To clarify the definition of "officially announced by the airline", you mean announced by the airline as a firm order, right? Because in this case, Hawaiian itself has issued a press release regarding the A321neo MOU. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The question here is that the airline has signed a purchase agreement or not. Announcing is not buying.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

What about options?

What about listing options? I see these listed in some fleet tables. —Compdude¹²³ 18:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Options come once a firm order has been placed. If an airline has at least an aircraft on option, it's because it has bought some aircraft as well.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that's true. Even so, is it fine to still have a column for options? (or some mention in the notes section?) —Compdude¹²³ 04:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

airlineroute.net

There has been a discussion which now is archived about whether airlineroute.net is a reliable source See Archive. Unfortunately that discussion has been archived so I couldn’t add to it. It has been argued that airlineroute.net is part of UBM Aviation, a profit company, with “commercial concern” which from my point of view is also true for most media companies. UBM is also the organiser of the World Routes Development Forum (Routes), the biggest global meeting between airline network managers and airports to discuss new services including most major airports and airlines (see listing). Routes is widely acknowledged as an independent broker between the two parties. Part of the service is the most up to date news about route development via routesonline.com and airlinesroutes.net. Being an airport manager myself I always found that the information given are highly accurate and are followed by most airline network managers and airport route development managers I know. In my daily work it is more accurate than flight schedules filed by airlines with us or civil aviation authorities. In a nutshell, I think it is a reliable source. Looking forward to reading your comments. JochenvW (talk) 12:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, this is currently being discussed here. Slasher-fun (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

ThanksJochenvW (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

One of the reasons why we decided not to regard it as a reliable source is that the website says this at the bottom of the page: "...Although the best efforts have been taken in collecting and checking the material we can not and do not warrant that the information contained in this product is complete or accurate and does not assume and hereby disclaims liability to any person for any loss of damage caused by errors or omissions.". That disclaimer was why we don't consider airlineroute.net to be a reliable source. —Compdude¹²³ 18:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok let's continue to keep this discussion on the airports talk page, so as not to have it in two places. —Compdude¹²³ 18:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Airlink

The article on the helicopter shuttle service Airlink was recently put up for DYK. While it is a very well written article, it relies on a source from a personal website written by a retired airline employee. I wasn't sure if it could be considered reliable so I'm posting here for a second opinion. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 17:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

No it is clearly a self published work, it can be usefull to find reliable references but should not be used as a reference. MilborneOne (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh and the "hook" being asked for "that the helicopter used for the "curious" Airlink shuttle service between Gatwick and Heathrow airports subsequently "languish[ed] in weeds somewhere in Brazil" would be one of the first things deleted if the article had a tidy up, it is just not notable and not the sort of thing we would add to an airline type article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought it wouldn't pass but wasn't sure if the guy was the leading expert on "defunct intra-airport helicopter transport in the UK" kind of thing :) Any other sources that you might come across on the matter would be appreciated. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 18:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Maintenance

Lots of stubs and Airline articles needing attention at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Maintenance--Petebutt (talk) 08:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

JACDEC Report

Yesterday, an IP editor added sentences about ranking nth-last in safety records to several airline articles based on this article by Alex Davies of Business Insider, which in turn based on this report (see their contribs for a list). Personally, I don't think citing the report for the claims is appropriate. My rationale is on my talk page, which I'll quote below:

"As someone who likes and reads about civil aviation (not a whole lot, but it's a hobby), I question the authoritativeness of the report and the appropriateness of citing it on Wikipedia. Aside from being a limited comparison with no explanation of how the airlines were chosen, the methodology used is unclear—we don't know how they arrived at their scores from the metrics they used. And it seems to compare the past 30 years regardless of the age of each airline, arriving at conclusions that are questionable when labelled as the "safety rate (index?)" of the airlines, as many of the airlines close to the bottom have not had any major accidents in recent years. I'll freely admit that China Airlines had a terrible record (to the point where the phrase "Four-Year Limit" was coined to refer to its having a hull-loss accident every 4 years), but unless the report is a well-recognised publication on aviation safety, citing it for the sort of claims seems inappropriate, for articles on any airline."

I'd prefer that the additions simply be reversed. Failing that, we should at least amend the claims (other than the one at China Airlines, which has already been modified) to clarify that only 60 airlines were compared. Thoughts on the matter would be appreciated. wctaiwan (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

WP Airlines in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Airlines for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys, I responded to these questions; it would be cool if another editor participated in the interview, too. Thanks, Compdude¹²³ 19:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

A Turkish Airlines not notable occurrence

Hello. A user keeps adding a minor incident ([8]) into the list of accidents and incidents. I already reverted their addition once ([9]), but the user has reinstated the content again ([10]). The event is so not notable that Aviation Safety Network does not even include it in TK's list. Can we please discuss this stuff here?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

ASN is not the arbiter of notability on Wikipedia. ASN is a source of information. Last week's incident was quite notable to people in Izmir last week, and it was covered by dozens of news agencies throughout the world, in less than a day. The incident is properly reported and cited. Your actions so far are inappropriate. Unless you can cite objective criteria that exclude its mention, the entry stands. Immediately cease vandalizing the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:BC86:1:222:19FF:FEF3:BC0A (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:AIRCRASH. This guideline defines what accidents are worth including in Wikipedia articles. Just because it was in a bunch of news articles doesn't necessarily mean that it's notable enough to be mentioned in the article. —Compdude¹²³ 20:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Last week's incident meets the criteria because 'serious damage to the aircraft' did occur. When an engine fire is severe enough to use extinguishers, during approach nontheless, the engine is damaged, and need significant repair. Deploying the engine fire extinguishers is not a casual occurance, and does not happen often. It is serious, and causes serious damage. User talk:Jetstreamer has an ongoing problem with vandalism and edit wars, as you can see in his user page. This is not his first and won't be his last abuse of dispute resolution and reverts. I move for a temporary ban. It is important that we take this behavior seriously.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:BC86:1:222:19FF:FEF3:BC0A (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2013

2001 I think you need to strike you personal attack on Jetstreamer, as far as I can see he didnt do anything wrong. Jetstreamer challenged you edit on the grounds that it wasnt notable, you added it again and it was removed by another user. Your addition has been challenged it doesnt matter what the reason you have to get consensus on the article talk page to add it again, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but an engine change because of a failure is not a "serious damage to the aircraft" to me, or we could add a new "notable" incident almost every day... On a plane, there is no such "severe enough fire" to use extinguishers, all fire (or even smoke) events are serious enough to use extinguishers. Slasher-fun (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

In addition to Slasher-fun's comment, no one was seriously injured or died nor did the crash cause severe damage to the airport. Almost all aircraft suffered lightning strikes or minor engine fires all the time unless people on board died. Snoozlepet (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

@2001:470:BC86:1:222:19FF:FEF3:BC0A: I told you to read WP:AIRCRASH, did you not read it yet? It is very imperative that you read that page. It basically says that an aviation incident is only notable under any of the following three conditions: (1) The incident resulted in fatalities, (2) the incident caused significant damage to the aircraft or airport, or (3) the incident resulted in change of procedures for the airline, airport, or aviation industry. Under these conditions and these conditions alone is an aviation incident considered notable enough to be allowed to be listed in an airline article. Failing to meet these conditions will result in the incident being quickly removed from an airline page. And please stop the personal attacks directed towards Jetstreamer, that's just not cool, man! —Compdude¹²³ 16:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

2001's position is that the engine fire is sufficient to be considered "significant damage to the aircraft". However, that position seems to have little agreement from other editors, thus the incident fails to meet the WP:AIRCRASH guidelines. 2001 also tries to establish notability by being covered by "dozens of news agencies throughout the world". In this case, I would refer to WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, which states that "a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable". -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. —Compdude¹²³ 19:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Gulf Aviation and Gulf Air

Hi, I've just come across the following problem: Are Gulf Aviation and Gulf Air the same company?

If so (which would mean that all that happened in 1974 was a name change), I think the two articles should be merged. Concerning the fleet history, there is already one shared list. For consistency, the same should be done with the accidents and incidents. And the remaining Gulf Aviation history section could easily be enclosed into Gulf Air.

One the other hand, if the two companies are not the same, it should be taken care of having the information split accordingly. For instance, in that case Gulf Air should be listed as "founded in 1974" (similar to Lufthansa: Officially they claim to be founded in 1926, but here in Wikipedia it is listed as "established in 1953" because from a corporate law standpoint, Deutsche Luft Hansa was totally unrelated).

As always, I appreciate your thoughts and comments. --FoxyOrange (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It appears they are the same company. I found the following on Gulf Air official website[11]: "Gulf Air has come a long way since it launched services in 1950 as Gulf Aviation Company." Cheers. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

They seem like they are the same company, so the two articles should be merged. —Compdude¹²³ 19:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I started the article "Gulf Aviation" as a stand-alone article for a number of reasons. (a) I have not found any reliable Bahraini source of company information for companies based in Bahrain, and therefore cannot cite the evolution of Gulf Aviation as a company in detail - for example I believe that ASGUL, Gulf Helicopters and perhaps Gulf Hotels started under the umbrella of Gulf Aviation when BOAC Associated Companies was a significant shareholder. (b) Part of the changes in 1973/1974 involved the re-registration of the aircraft on the Omani (A4O) register and so this seems a natural break point between the airlines known as Gulf Aviation and Gulf Air. I have not yet researched which entity/entities held the relevant Air Operators Certificate(s). Further comments etc welcomed. Simon Woodhead (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

So you're thinking that Gulf Aviation and Gulf Air are two separate companies? —Compdude¹²³ 19:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't know - that was part of my initial rationale for starting the separate article. I have only been able to establish that BOAC Associated Companies bought a minority holding in Gulf Aviation in 1951, and that their holding was bought out by the governments of Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and Oman with effect from 1 January 1974. Simon Woodhead (talk) 10:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Mokulele Airlines

Can someone else help keep an eye on Mokulele Airlines? Over the past couple of days a new editor or two has been coming in and removing a lot of cited historical content, along with making other changes that don't fit in with the wikiproject standards, such as listing all destinations in the infobox. I suspect the user has a conflict of interest with the airline itself, as the first editor that did this was MokuleleAirlines (talk · contribs). This account was banned for violating WP:CORPNAME, though now the same types of edits are being made by Aztravelwriter (talk · contribs). Thanks. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Now under a two week protection from new editors. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Aerosvit Airlines

Hello fellas! I've marked the the end date for operations in the infobox as needing sourcing. Does anyone know if Aerosvit ceased operations? To the best of my knowledge, the airline has drastically reduced its operations and has been banned from operating into Russia.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the airline is not defunct. One: the airline's website is still in operation. Two: According to this press release from the airline, http://america.aerosvit.com/us/index/usflinfonew/aboutusnew/news/14327.html, the airline will operate flights to New York, Bangkok, and Beijing for the Summer 2013 schedule (the airline's sole long-haul transcontinental flights) and the airline has already opened ticket sales for New York flights (Beijing and Bangkok flights will be bookable when the schedule for summer 2013 has been approved). If the airline has ceased operations, the airline's website will go blank and will say otherwise. Snoozlepet (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

AfD nomination

I've nominated Zakavia for deletion. The entry for the nomination can be found here.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Problem with airline names

There is a systemic problem in Wikipedia, possibly illustrated by the U.S. Airways article. Since it is a systemwide issue, I bring it up here first.

Frontier Airlines was a U.S. airline until around the 1980's. The current Frontier Airlines was started by many of the old Frontier Airlines management but is a separate WP article. I agree with this treatment. In other words, a shared name doesn't mean a shared article.

TWA was an airline acquired by American Airlines. Therefore, TWA has an article whose history ends in the 2000's. I agree with this treatment.

US Airways has done the wrong thing. It was acquired by America West. The headquarters are in Phoenix. The management are America West people. The airline is essentially America West. The WP US Airways article should begin with the history of America West and then mention "the airline acquired US Airways and took that brand name...for a history of the airline, US Airways preacquistion, see the US Airways (1992-2008) (years are approximate). Alternatively, we can start an airline article about US Airways, the current airline.

Remember, brand names are not the key factor in an article as we see in the Frontier Airlines article.

By doing what is done with US Airways, we are unwittingly helping US Airways brainwash the public. The airline you are flying is America West. Likewise, United Airlines is really run by Continental's CEO and Continental's operating certificate.

I have no beef with US Airways. I fly them occasionally. I just want to do what is best for Wikipedia. Auchansa (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the old edit history, you will see near edit wars trying to keep it clear which airline was the surviving one. Sometimes beginning a new article could be the best solution. Look at Planet Hollywood Resort and Casino which ran under several names and included a total replacement of the hotel and casino. So when major changes happen, how do you decide on a new article vs. expanding/extending an old one? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It would be good if there was further discussion. We could begin by saying if an airline acquires another airline and the acquiring airline keeps its name, it's clear that the acquiring airline's article should continue. We should also cautiously evaluate the informal term of "merger". Often, press releases uses that term to soothe the public. Whose operating certificate is used is a factor but not necessarily the gold standard. This is because airlines have purchased other's operating certificates and not even used that airline's personnel, aircraft, or name. So if the identity of the management who takes over control of the new airline. We should not automatically favor an airlines PR department, who may want to keep a name. Lastly, we may consider the historical lineage. For example, the lineage from Allegheny to USAir is fairly clear. USAir took over PSA and Piedmont.

This discussion is not to settle simply the USAirways problem but to have a general framework to fairly and consistently evaluate all airlines. This will avoid the "other crap exist" argument. For example if there is a right and wrong way. Some may propose the wrong way then ignore other examples, saying "other crap exists". This is bad for WP. Auchansa (talk) 04:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there any experience from other industries where mergers and aquisitions happen? JochenvW (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

FWiW the US Airways article appears to be OK as it is an unbroken continuation of the original name, the airline claims it was started in in the 1930s as All American Aviation, so if the airline thinks it has a continual history I dont see why we should treat it differently. MilborneOne (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

One could content that the USAirways article has a huge problem. I have not made a conclusion yet so do not shoot the messenger.

The article could have a history of the airline as the following:

The airline was started as America West, the oldest airline of the post deregulation period. It grew and grew. Then it took over USAirways and assumed their name. The headquarters is in Phoenix, America West's headquarters. The big wigs are all America West people. The call sign is "Cactus", not "USAir". For a history of USAirways, see USAirways -2009.

The problem here is that an airline with poor name recognition takes over a well known airline and takes its name. Usually, it's the big airline that takes over the small one. In the case of Frontier Airlines, there are two articles, one for the old airline that ended in the early 80's and the current airline. This shows that the airline name does not decide what the WP coverage will be.

This problem is not unique to USAirways. Valujet has this problem. Valujet was an airline tainted by a crash. Then it bought a small airline and took over its name, AirTran. Yet the AirTran article treats it the wrong way. It should begin with the history of Valujet. The history of the small AirTran carrier may be covered either as a separate article or mixed. In any case, it is completely wrong to separate Valujet to a separate article but not the small Air Tran that was taken over.

Auchansa (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

However, Valujet completely gave up its name to become AirTran, and we are going along name lineage, or that's what seems to be Wikipedia's norm. If you want to find a ValuJet article, you can find it via a link on the AirTran page, which has all the info about ValuJet you need to know. Also, I think that it would be rather confusing if we wrote along the lines of 'US Airways started operations as America West Airlines' ... info info info etc... 'America West Airlines then merged with US Airways' with US Airways being a completely different company despite talking about the airline US Airways. I hope you get my gist. Airlinesguy (talk) 09:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your analysis about Valujet. The AirTran article basically says "the old Air Trans started...all this history...then it was acquired by the airline formerly known as Valujet....then it continued until Southwest." In essence, we are being biased by having an article about the brand name and ignoring the big gorilla, Valujet. This is completely the wrong way to do it. There are several plausible correct ways, but not the current way. This is way standardization is necessarily in WP. Auchansa (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

But some of that could be addressed by, in the US-HP case at least, having started a new article (not saying that would be correct). The combined airline did have a name change as I recall making for a clean break into a new article. Companies strive to maintain early roots after a merger keeping the earliest founding date from any branch. I'm afraid to look at the CO-UA article to see how it was handled there. I have argued in the past that at some point you need to revert back to separate articles so that reading is easier, especially in the history sections. No matter how this discussion winds up, it should be clear that this is not going to be a one size solution fits all cases. One side note. The HP article was kind of frozen in time to reflect that company at the time it acquired US. However we lack that for the old US Air. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with your opposition to one size fits all. We should have standardization then all non-standardization as an exception or if there is a clear reason. I am open to discussion to what the standardized way should be, however.

In summary, my first draft proposal for standardization would be to assess who is the acquiring airline. Then the history of the airline should be that of the acquiring airline. Other airlines which contributed to the entity may be included or may have a separate article. End of summary. Comments in opposition or in support appreciated. Auchansa (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess the US/AA merger will be the next change that affects the content of airline articles. When the smaller company acquires the larger, again. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The terms have not yet been announced. However, we should not be biased and automatically give in to the airlines' brainwashing and have the American Airlines article be about the old AA. Instead, we should keep an open mind and evaluate who acquired whom. What happened to the shares? The operating certificate? The headquarters? The CEO? If it looks like USAirways is taking over American then there should be the following articles:

American Airlines (to 2013 or 2014)

American Airlines. The history would begin with America West but have clearly marked links to the articles about the old American Airlines and old USAir.

Auchansa (talk) 03:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

City-Air

Dear project participants, the article for now defunct German airline City-Air does not cite any references or sources. Who would like to improve this article? The company seems to be notable as scheduled flights with "decent sized airliners" were operated. But still, the criteria per WP:CORP must be met. Best regards --FoxyOrange (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Many airline AfDs

Many airline articles have been recently nominated for deletion. I have attempted to add them all to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Aviation. Members of the project may wish to examine them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Transavia.com destinations

Destinations are listed in four or five seprate tables for different cities they are served from, is this ok?inspector (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The current layout for the destinations was introduced by Harbosma (talk · contribs) and seems to be aimed at resembling a travel guide, something Wikipedia is not. A single table would be enough. I've also marked the article as having no inline citations.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Lineas Aéreas del Sur

Before AfDing the article, I'd like to get some thoughts regarding it. The only two references included are not reliable (one is Planespotters.net and the other is a set of three images at Airliners.net), plus the official website included in the infobox is dead. Clearly, the page fails verification. FYI, I'm Argentine, and it's the first time I hear from this airline.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I Googled it and couldn't even find anything other than some photos, forums, and blogs. And considering you live in Argentina and have never heard of the airline, that's all the more reason to AfD (or maybe even PROD) it. —Compdude¹²³ 21:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I've PRODed the article.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merger of UAL and UCH

I have proposed that UAL Corporation be merged into United Continental Holdings, as both articles suggest that they are the same company, just renamed after the merger with Continental. Any feedback at the discussion is greatly appreciated and will help determine the future of the pages! Thanks, WikiRedactor (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Terminated template in use in layout (Airlines)

Since terminated was converted to use a template, I'd like to propose that we standardize all of the status in the sample table. To that end, I created a few templates. Please feel to tweak the colors and comment on these. If no objections, this can replace the sample at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Airlines)

Country (State/Province)	City	Airport	Notes	Refs
Canada (Ontario)	Toronto	Pearson Airport	Terminated
Mexico (Baja California Sur)	Los Cabos	Los Cabos Airport
Mexico (Jalisco)	Puerto Vallarta	Lic. Gustavo Díaz Ordaz International Airport
Mexico (Quintana Roo)	Cancún	Cancún Airport	Seasonal
United States (California)	Los Angeles	Los Angeles Airport	Focus city
United States (California)	Palm Springs	Palm Springs Airport
United States (California)	Orange County	John Wayne Airport	Terminated
United States (California)	San Diego	San Diego Airport
United States (California)	San Francisco	San Francisco Airport	Hub
United States (Florida)	Fort Lauderdale	Fort Lauderdale - Hollywood Airport	Terminated
United States (Florida)	Orlando	Orlando Airport
United States (Illinois)	Chicago	O'Hare Airport
United States (Massachusetts)	Boston	Logan Airport	Terminated
United States (Nevada)	Las Vegas	McCarran Airport
United States (New York)	New York	John F. Kennedy Airport
United States (Pennsylvania)	Philadelphia	Philadelphia International Airport	Begins August 4, 2012
United States (Texas)	Dallas	Dallas/Fort Worth Airport
United States (Washington)	Seattle	Seattle–Tacoma Airport
United States (District of Columbia)	Washington	Dulles Airport

Vegaswikian (talk) 05:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually using {{terminated}} for the new layout of destination tables. The most recent one I switched to the new format is at Sudan Airways destinations TAP Portugal destinations. It was raised somewhere in the heated previous discussion leading to the new format that no colors would be used, so I propose to use no colors at all. I've been looking for the way to use {{terminated}} with a white background, yet I found no internal parameters to do that. Is it possible?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that the use of colors would be fine if they are part of a template. It's much easier to use colors in a template than to have to remember some complicated hexadecimal code for each color, as we were doing before. It's not so difficult as it was before. The only issue with this is with destination lists that have start and end dates. Would there be any sort of colors, or should we just leave them be? For 99% of us, the hexadecimal color codes are way too darn complicated and having a template to apply the colors would be much easier. In fact these whole really-long tables can be pretty complicated in and of themselves, and it takes lots of time to convert them to the new format. —Compdude¹²³ 20:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

If someone felt the need to add colors for the dates, that could be added. In the beginning, it might make send to add start and end templates with a white background color. That way, if in the future, it was decided that a color would be nice, it would be a very easy change to make. One argument for a template would be that you could do the center parameter in the template, removing the need for every entry to have that. One the other hand, date are long enough that the longest ones will be automatically centered. But if you use May 1, yyyy and December 31, yyyy the latter would wind up centered and the former left justified. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm centering the dates line by line, but your proposal is interesting. {{Terminated}} is automatically centered, but is there any possibility for {{date}} to be modified so that it can include the words "begins" or "ends", and also to be centered?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Date could probably be modified, but given it's high usage, I'm not sure it that would be the best solution. If the features of date are needed it could be used under the covers of a new template. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so... are we going to do this or not? The discussion on this thread has fizzled. —Compdude¹²³ 04:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I am intruding into the discussion to tell you what I think about this. In my opinion we should places: 1) City, 2) Countries + flags. It remains more simple. Because (IMHO) the reader is more interested to city rather than countries. Few people are aware of the possibility to sort the table. This is what I think. Very nice idea, however, to create a template. --Wind of freedom (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm afraid that you won't find any support for that. That's how it used to be, and pretty much every member of the project disliked the old format. Most of us think it makes absolutely ZERO sense for it to be sorted by city, and having flags goes against MOS:FLAGS because flags are only to be used in cases where a subject actually represents a particular country (i.e. Olympic medalists). And besides, most of us didn't like flags anyway. Whenever I looked at a table that was sorted by city, the first thing I'd do was to sort it by country. I don't give a crap about how many different cities by the name "Santiago" that an airline serves; I'm more interested in how many destinations an airline serves in, say, France. —Compdude¹²³ 18:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we can united the two airline destinations table in only one:

Country	City	Airport	Notes	Begins	Ends	Refs

For using in all airline because in a lot of airline we known only destinations begin date or end.

I propose also to coloured only in terminated destination the city name too. --Wind of freedom (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly how the table format is right now. I'd rather not add another place for us to fill in colors using ultra-complicated color codes. These tables are updated so often (airlines frequently change their destinations) that it's just a pain to edit when it's really complicated with all the colors. —Compdude¹²³ 18:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me add that we already had a discussion (now archived) not so long ago, and it was agreed to use the current format.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. But in "instructions" page are showed two tables: in first table there are "notes" and in the second table there are "begins" and "ends" dates. We can join the two tables in only one as on the example two lines above. --Wind of freedom (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, two tables are shown because you may choose to use one format (that includes start and end dates) or the other. The above table is a proposal by Vegaswikian, and as such is not to be implemented yet. The accepted format, built by consensus, is one of the two appearing at WP:AIRLINE.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Since discussion on this has quieted down, is there an objection to using the format with colors and symbols to indicate the type of station? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with them, but realise that {{focus city}} and {{seasonal}} haven't been created yet. Shall them be? Moreover, can {{airline hub}} include a link to airline hub?. And, by the way, is there any possibility to create templates for start and dates? Maybe a variation of {{start date}} and {{end date}}? I'd do in on my own, but right now don't have the skills...--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm reading your reply as kind of support after some details are resolved. Yes, {{airline hub}} could link to airline hub, that would be a simple change to the template. What is missing since {{Airline focus}} and {{Airline seasonal}} were created. Yes, we could add templates for the dates. I guess the question is, do we want and need them? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Eh, naah. Not really. I guess the only point of making a template for that would be to center the "Begins [date]." I don't think that's necessary because that's usually the longest bit of text in the notes column so it wouldn't make any difference whether or not it's centered. And I don't think colors are necessary for that either. To reply to what Jetstreamer said, perhaps {{focus city}} and {{seasonal}} should redirect to {{airline focus}} and {{airline seasonal}}, respectively.

PS I'm going to explain all these templates on the style guide page. —Compdude¹²³ 18:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Templates are needed for the dates to get them to display correctly. I have started a discussion about the changes unique to the second table below. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Another thought: The color for hub and focus city are really similar, and most people would probably not be able to tell the difference. People can read, but then again, it'd be nice if they were two distinct colors. Same can be said for the seasonal and terminated template colors. Let's not mess with the terminated template but I'd suggest changing the color for seasonal to green (like it was before we made the new table format). —Compdude¹²³ 18:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I linked Focus city and Airline hub in those templates and changed the color for hub to orange and the color for seasonal to green, since these have more variance from the other colors, and they were what were used in the past. What do you think? —Compdude¹²³ 18:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Finally, this discussion is coming to an end. The matter with the colors is just a detail for me, we can discuss later which are the better ones that fit. I have two concerns, though:

1. The previous version of the tables had a pastel yellow for future services. The color doesn't matter, but will we drop colors for future destinations? That's not an issue for me, and also ain't an issue for Compdude123, as per above.
2. What happens when an airline has secondary hubs? I propose here to use the same {{airline hub}} template, but having an option to add more info after the vertical bar, just like with {{done}} or {{No}}, i.e.  Additional info might be placed here.

Thoughts?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The templates will probably need that fix for the dated table since they would be used in the column that lists the airport. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey, that would be a good idea! We do need to remember to provide documentation for all these templates. Can you do custom text for the {{terminated}} template? —Compdude¹²³ 20:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

How would it look like?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll work up a suggestion here. I have some questions there that I would like answered to see what changes are needed. If I have time today, I'll try and set up the example for hubs and terminated colors later today once I can modify the templates, or a least one to give everyone an idea of what it will look like. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

American Airlines and US Airways's proposed merger

Since both airline's have announced a possible merger or currently in talks about merging. Shouldn't each airline's article should have a separate section about the proposed merger since there wasn't any section made for it? Snoozlepet (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Since this is likely to drag on for a while and since at this point we don't know what the surviving airline would be, if in fact the merge goes through, I would lean to either a separate article so that we don't overload one of the existing articles with the material which will surely be posted hourly. If it is in an existing article, then it probably should be a section in the AA article since they are in bankruptcy and the one likely to be acquired. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above proposal. Having a separate article is the better choice.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

According to this source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-report-creditors-ok-american-us-airways-merger-20130213,0,6602450.story and other numerous reports, the merger was approved by both airlines. The combined airline will take the "American Airlines" name, be based in Fort Worth (AA's hometown), but the CEO will be Doug Parker (CEO of US Airways). Since both articles are semi-protected, I think that this information should be added (but make a separate article). However, someone already jumped the gun the AA page and added a pointer. Should add a pointer for the US Airways page as well. I thinking this merger will be similar to United and Continental's merger but I am not sure where the largest hub is going to be, what livery the airline will take, or which SOC will survive. That part is pure speculation and will be announced as it goes. Snoozlepet (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind: This deal still requires the approval of the bankruptcy court, US Airways shareholders, and antitrust regulators. So there's still the possibility that it could fall apart and not happen. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Correct. In any case I went ahead and created American Airlines-US Airways merger so that the material going forward can be concentrated in one place. As of now that article is not protected. However we apparently had problems overnight with one of the articles I did not protect so it is possible that we may need protection on this article also. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I have found a source for the name of the parent company. Apparently "AMR Corp" will change its to name to American Airlines Group, Inc. as per http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-20/us-airways-says-amr-corp-name-to-disappear-in-american-merger.html. I think someone should mention this somewhere in the AA page but I am not sure when will they change the name. Snoozlepet (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Terminated template in use in layout (Airlines) with dates

Now that the table without dates seems to have an updated format, I'll start working on the table with the dates to match. Off hand I have some questions.

Should begins/ends be changed to commencement/termination? This removes the issue of a title for dates for service starting and having started in one column. Likewise this would address the issue of planned termination and already terminated in the ends column. I'm thinking that the dates should be displayed without any use of color. We also probably need to add a bottom bar to explain the colors and symbols so it is all enclosed in the table. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

How to list Clark in destinations?

Clark is just an airport in the Phillipines, its not a city, its closest city is Angeles and a few other smaller places, its also used as a secondary airport for Manila which is three hours drive time from the place, editor Snoozlepet has added it to the Emirates destinations list as Clark, which leads to a disambiguation page which does not include any city named Clark.

I had added it as secondary airport serving Manila because thats the best identification for it, as mentioned earlier no city in Philippines is named Clark, and no airline serving this airport lists Angeles as their destination, for foreign carriers Asiana Airlines website booking menu lists the place as Luzon Island - Clark Field, Dragonair showing it as Clark/Luzon Island, Air Asia list it as Clark and Jin Air as Clark Field.

Whats the solution, once again its not a city so cannot be listed in city as Clark just as Gatwick cannot be listed in same manner as its just an airport, so is it Luzon or Luzon wikified to Clark oar Angeles or Manila? like Hahn Airport serving Frankfurt more than a 100 miles away.

I say it should be either Clark or just Manila, as Luzon is the biggest Island and hosts provinces and cities like Manila and Angeles its not some tiny secluded place being served by this airport inspector (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this of no concern? there is no city named Clark, its either Angeles or Manila, or even Clark Freetrade Zone, which to list? inspector (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd say the most reliable way is to ask: How do airlines serving Clark and departure airports of flights heading to Clark call it? HkCaGu (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:GoExpress

Template:GoExpress has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

KLM Delft Blue houses

Hi,

First of all, I don't know if this is the right place for this message...but nevertheless let's start. Over the last 1.5 month I have made some improvements to the KLM article. Currently I arrived at the "Delft Blue houses" subsection (see KLM Branding). I would love to improve and extend it, but this section is already quite detailed for a subsection in a main article. It contains almost a complete history about the Delft Blue houses KLM hands out to its passengers flying in Business Class. Therefore, I was thinking about splitting this subsection from this article into its own article (KLM Delft Blue houses) and summarize that new article just briefly in the KLM article. I was wondering whether this is appropriate and I am looking forward to your opinions as well. I hope you can give me some advice.

HayoJB (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Aer Lingus destinations

Can someone have a look at this page? Along with the destinations served by Aer Lingus itself, it also includes codeshare and interline destinations as well. I don't know if those should be listed or not and I thought we aren't suppose to list codeshare/interline destinations in these lists. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Your are absolutely right! According to the Destinations paragraph of the Style Guide/Layout (Airlines) page, "Code share destinations should not be listed for the secondary carrier", in this case Aer Lingus is the secondary carrier on the codeshared routes. The codeshared destinations thus are not supposed to be listed. HayoJB (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hambantota International Airport

The new airport's official name is Mattala Rajapakse International http://www.airport.lk/AIS/PDF/SUP-01-13-Published.pdf article title needs changing. inspector (talk) 12:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be posted at WT:AIRPORTS? Aside from this, according to the source provided Mattala Rajapaksa International Airport seems to be a new airport that will replace Hambantota effective March 18th.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Was there an airport at Hambantota ever before, no airline flew there if so. inspector (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Skytrax (again)

Hi there fellas! Just wanted to let you know that there's an ongoing edit war at Cubana de Aviación regarding the addition of unsourced Skytrax-related information in the lead. I've already reverted this addition three times. Pending changes are configured for the article, as well a for Spirit Airlines, where much the same situation goes on. More serious is the fact that some users have accepted the changes, even though the edits include no citations at all. Your input regarding the matter, here or at the article's talk page, will be much appreciated. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Jet Armenia

Does this airline exist? Did it ever exist? It looks more like a hoax to me, in particular if the (truly fantastic) list of alleged destinations is taken at face value. Unrelated, I noticed that with the bankruptcy of Armavia all (now former) Armavia destinations have been deleted from Zvartnots International Airport. But wouldn't it be the job of an encyclopedia to retain, in some form, this now historical information? Otherwise the destination list just becomes a directory. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.Rahmin (talk • contribs) 15:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Naming convention for airlines that were rebranded shortly before being shut down?

Hi, this has just occurred to me. So to speak, another facette of the above "airline history" problem. Moscow Airlines was known as Atlant-Soyuz Airlines from 1993 to 2010, was then renamed and vanished only four months later. Obviously, the time as Moscow Airlines can be regarded as a quite unimportant episode in the history of the airline. So, is it right to use this short lived company name as title of the Wikipedia article, or should it rather be changed back to Atlant-Soyuz Airlines? What are your thoughts and comments on that matter? I'm pretty sure there are examples for similar cases. For instance, I've just rewritten Ransome Airlines, and I would heavily oppose the article being named "Trans World Express". Best regards --FoxyOrange (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME provides the guidance. In general, this would default back to the long running name. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, the latest name should prevail for Moscow Airlines, mostly considering that the airline became defunct under that name.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I would disagree. Since the majority of the airline's history, thus the majority of the article, would be covering the airline under the name Atlant-Soyuz, I think it should use the long running name. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it would make sense that the article use the name that the airline had for most of its existence, "Atlant-Soyuz Airlines." —Compdude¹²³ 05:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Likewise for buildings torn down, use the most common/popular name, but if it's still standing use the current name. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

old and new city country names in airlines destination lists

According to concensus some years back it was decided only new / current city and country names will be used, but editor Jetstreamer is adamant on using Rangoon in KLM list because the schedules show it as that dating to 1950s, even though wikipedia's own article on the city is titled Yangon, if you put Rangoon it redirects to the current title, same goes for other cities like Leningrad is to be listed as St. Petersburg even if an airline served it as Leningrad, so on so forth, for countries USSR to be listed as each country it has broken into not as Baku USSR, Tashkent USSR etc, but Baku Azerbaijan, Tashkent Uzbekistan so on.

Again its based on concensus if things have changed I'm not aware, many of my edits were reverted for using old city / country names in lists as they were when respective airlines served them. inspector (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

So far, I have not been aware of such consensus. When/where/why was it decided to only use present-day names? To my perception, any historical article in Wikipedia uses former names. I am quite active in historic airline articles, and I always try to use city/country/airport names in the valid form back at the respective time. To me, this is the only logical possibility. Just a few examples from the top of my head: The pre-1945 Deutsche Lufthansa served Danzig and Königsberg, then in Germany (not Gdansk in Poland or Kaliningrad in Russia). Interflug served Leningrad in the USSR, not Saint Petersburg in Russia. Central African Airways was an airline from Southern Rhodesia, based in Salisbury. Air South was based at Atlanta Municipal Airport, not at Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport. And now for something complete different: List of papal elections has the Apostolic Palace listed as being located in Rome until 1922, and from 1939 onwards in the Vatican City. Quite now, I'm confused. Do you really think different? --FoxyOrange (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm with FoxyOrange (talk · contribs) regarding this matter. Historical articles should include historical names. After all, redirects do all the job for us.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I concur with FoxyOrange and Jetstreamer. For airlines no longer in business, use the name of the destination in use at the time the airline existed. For airlines that still exist but no longer serve destinations which changed names after the airline stopped service there, also use the old name that was in use at the time. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Well the number of editors who supported it made it seem like a concensus, this was around 2008 or earlier, I supported old names too but all my edits were undone, if the task is undertaken how does one list places like Jerusalem as part of Jordan or Palestine, some prefer listing it as Israel even predating Israeli takeover. inspector (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit war at EgyptAir destinations over Haifa listing, it was served by Misr Airworks in 1930s as Mandatory Palestine and not Israel, route map reference shows it. 139.190.160.152 (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Aha, you were talking about the 1930s. Replacing Israel with Palestine looks suspiciously like vandalism especially when there is no edit summary. Sorry. 10metreh (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Same as showing Palestinian cities as Israel ones in various articles and airline destination lists in the past. 139.190.160.152 (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

And your point is...? 10metreh (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Same as yours. 139.190.160.152 (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Should Template:United Continental Holdings include links to articles about criticism of United?

Should the template Template:United Continental Holdings include links to United Breaks Guitars and Untied.com? Both articles are about criticism of the airline. I wouldn't put them on a "Criticism" header but maybe a "History" header or a "Reception" header, to be neutral.

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

No not needed in navbox, nothing to do with a the company, the company navbox is to navigate between subjects directly related to the company, these two have no real connection. MilborneOne (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I decided to look at Template:ExxonMobil and it includes a "controversies" section chronicling all of the legal and PR issues. Untied.com is directly related because it was founded for the purpose of criticizing United Airlines and due to the merger it is now criticizing the new company, which filed legal action against the website. The Breaks Guitars one was made to criticize the "old" United. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Should Japan Airlines Domestic and Japan Domestic Airlines be merged?

To me, this looks like just one company. Is there anyone with some kind of deeper insight? Best regards --FoxyOrange (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe they should be merged into the Japan Airlines article as these have merged to form the current JAL parent company. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

When was Lufthansa founded: In 1926, or in 1953?

Dear members of the WikiProject Airlines, I would like to inform you that on the Lufthansa talk page, there is an ongoing discussion on that matter, which I initiated. So far, only two other users have commented and shared their views. This is why I'm posting this notice, hoping that others will participate with their precious thoughts and comments, which of course will be greatly appreciated. Best regards.--FoxyOrange (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, could someone, anyone please comment on that matter? Currently, this question seems to be an argument only between me an User:Illraute. Obviously, we are in need of some kind of arbitration. Thanks in advance for any kind of input.--FoxyOrange (talk) 06:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll make some search in the sources I usually use and will provide my comments, based on published references.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for comments concerning the year Lufthansa was founded in

There is an ongoing dispute over the founding date of Lufthansa. See RFC-section at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Germany#Request_for_comments_concerning_the_year_Lufthansa_was_founded_in to add your comments. GermanJoe (talk) 08:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

National Air Cargo and National Airlines (N8)

Should National Air Cargo and National Airlines (N8) have separate articles? The former is based in New York and the latter is based in Florida (formerly in Michigan). They are sister companies but currently share the same Wikipedia article.

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That depends. The company structure must be evaluated. Without having done any such research (yet), to me, it looks more like two branding names (of one company, so no need for two articles).--FoxyOrange (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It would clearly make the articles cleaner. Do they both share the N8 code? If so disambiguation would need to be addressed in a split. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to find about the code. The two have separate websites: http://www.nationalaircargo.com/ and http://nationalairlines.aero/ - The website says that National Airlines is: "is a wholly-owned entity of National Air Cargo Holdings, Inc." - Crain's Detroit Business says "National Airlines is the sister company of Orchard Park, N.Y.-based National Air Cargo." WhisperToMe (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.iata.org/publications/Pages/code-search.aspx says that N8 (airline prefix code 416) is assigned to "National Air Cargo Group, Inc. dba National Airlines" - The directory does not list a separate code for the airlines. http://www.avcodes.co.uk/airlcodesearch.asp says that N8 is to "National Airlines / National Air Cargo Group, Inc. d/b/a National Airlines" is to the ICAO code NCR, callsign "National Cargo" WhisperToMe (talk) 03:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment on Merger Proposal

There is a request to merge the UAL Corporation article into the United Continental Holdings article. (>>>Discussion Here<<<): Nominator rational: The articles suggest that they are the same company, just renamed after the merger. Please add your input. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 13:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

ACT Airlines becomes MyCargo, article title needs changing

ACT have phased out all of their ACT branded A300 fleet, they now only operate two 747-400F in HNA group MyCargo branding, the process has been on since 2011 when HNA took stake in ACT, website also changed http://www.mycargo.aero/ please update article accordingly. 139.190.160.152 (talk) 08:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I've moved the article to MyCargo Airlines and updated the text. Someone still needs to go in and update the logo. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

MIT study on air service in US

• Wittman, Michael D. and William S. Swelbar. "Trends and Market Forces Shaping Small Community Air Service in the United States." (Archive) Massachusetts Institute of Technology International Center for Air Transportation. Report No. ICAT-2013-02. MIT Small Community Air Service White Paper No. 1, May 2013.

The WSJ has an article summarizing the study:

• "Leaner Airlines Mean Fewer Routes, Study Shows." Wall Street Journal. May 7, 2013.
  • Yahoo version of the article: http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/leaner-airlines-mean-fewer-routes-233000930.html - http://www.webcitation.org/6GUuDJ8fy

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Factually incorrect information being hosted

Malaysia Airlines destinations article list is showing Moscow and New York-JFK airport as terminated routes, the airline has never served Russia nor JFK airport ever, they served New York only through Newark airport, my edits to remove the content despite edit summary were reverted and challenged, the citation added for JFK is incorrect, they only served EWR airport which is listed in the article. How involved are project editors in keeping track of airline route happenings and being informed enough to know that online sources can also be wrong at times. 139.190.160.152 (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The citation is a reliable source, so the onus is on you to provide a source that states the listed source is wrong. Did they publish a correction? Can you find a source that shows they served Newark? My first thought would be a timetable or OAG from shortly before the supposed ending date given by the source that shows EWR being served, not JFK. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

There is already Newark listed in the destinations with citation confirming it, you can pose the query at aviation discussion boards hundreds will confirm they only served EWR, why go far look up history for KL airport and MH destinations article here dating back a few years to confirm through edits made, also check with Malaysian Wings aviation forum by joining or browsing it, just to make sure, isn't this what savvy editors do when being associated with the project? 139.190.160.152 (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

MH served Newark from Kuala Lumpur via Stockholm but that service ceased in October of 2009. Provide a source (or a past timetable) saying that Malaysia Airlines has indeed served Moscow or JFK. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you telling me? 139.190.160.152 (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

MAS did codeshare to Moscow with Transaero according to [12] but didnt operate the service itself. MilborneOne (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

So c/s can be listed in destinations? 139.190.160.152 (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Internet forums such as Malaysian Wings or the Airliners.net forums are not reliable sources for Wikipedia. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Ironic you should say that with such conviction considering the topic at hand. 139.190.160.152 (talk) 00:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

JAL domestic article

Was this really needed rather than be a section in JAL article? 139.190.160.152 (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Iraqi Airways - Malmo

Does anyone know if Malmo is a destination served by Iraqi Airways? I know that they operate flights between Baghdad and Gatwick with a stop in Malmo but I am guessing it is a tech or fuel stop. Malmo is not bookable on their website nor it does not list in the destination dropbox on the booking engine or timetables. Also, Malmo Airport's website does not list Iraqi Airways as airline serving the airport. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 06:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

A photo of their flight at MMX states that it carried five passengers to the city at airliners.net. 139.190.160.152 (talk) 08:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

however, airliners.net is a forum and cannot be used as reliable source for wiki. It was served as a tech stop only. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 04:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Not referring to forum, the photographer at Malmo stated that as caption under his photo, the flight could be carrying passengers the return leg might seem a tad inconvenient via London but for a country, and airline with problems not a big deal. 139.190.160.152 (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Turkish Airlines destinations

Hello. Can someone please make 217.129.59.220 (talk · contribs) understand their addition of a new destination is not properly backed by a reliable source. So far, I've made two reversion to the article, and don't wan't to be involved in a WP:3RR episode. I've alredy explained the IP the reasons for my reversion at my talk page, yet s(he) keeps ignoring any arguments. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Saha Airlines

this airline is still active according to this site which updates information monthly http://www.ch-aviation.ch/portal/airline.php?cha=IRZ wiki article states its shut down online articles claim same, but it seems they have stopped flying their 707s which were the only active aircraft in their fleet, and are operating A300s for another airline. 139.190.160.152 (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

So what's the concern? The airline is active and the article conradicts this?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes company active only 707s out due to which its stopped flying its own services. 139.190.160.152 (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

As per WP:BOLD you may proceed with the changes you think are suitable, backing them up with reliable sources whenever possible.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi-Jet Helicopter Services

I'd like to draw your attention to the deletion discussion for this article. It has been nominated for deletion after it was re-created. Please leave your comments at the discussion's page. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Deleted.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Alliance in codeshare sections

I still see a couple of airline articles under the codeshare sections still have airlines with alliances. I don't know which pages but a couple I have removed the alliances next to the airline as it was agreed in the past that alliance are not to be included. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Definition of airline at World's Largest Airlines

There's a discussion at Talk:World's largest airlines about the definition of an airline for size purposes; input would be helpful (there, not here, to consolidate discussion). —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 06:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Do we need navboxes for individual airlines?

A user has been adding {{Lion Air}} to Lion Air articles. I think it's unnecessary. — Lfdder (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this case is ok. With multiple articles related to Lion Air, it's reasonable to have a navbox to facilitate moving between them. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Fire on Ethiopian Dreamliner at Heathrow

Does this incident warrant inclusion at both Ethiopian Airlines and its list of accidents and incidents?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Unlikely if it is nothing to do with the batteries and the aircraft is repaired. MilborneOne (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI: Aviation Week thinks it was unrelated to the batteries in this article. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: Split the "Delft Blue houses" section from the KLM article.

Hi all,

I already placed this at the end of February, but nobody ever gave me advice, so I decided to "kick" this issue back to the top.

I currently started again with editing and improving the KLM article. There is still the "Delft Blue houses" subsection (under KLM Branding), about which I have a dilemma. I would love to improve and extend it, but this section is already quite detailed for a subsection in a main article. It contains almost a complete history about the Delft Blue houses KLM hands out to its passengers flying in Business Class. Therefore, I was thinking about splitting this subsection from this article into its own article (KLM Delft Blue houses) and summarize that new article just briefly in the KLM article. I was wondering whether this is appropriate and I am looking forward to your opinions as well. I hope you can give me some advice!

Thanks in advance!

HayoJB (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

As nobody has replied to your original suggestion in February you can take it that nobody objects or feels strongly enough to comment, I would just create a new article per WP:BOLD and WP:SILENCE. MilborneOne (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Saudia - Discrimination Against Israelis

Just removed a section on Discrimination Against Israelis from the Saudia article twice as not notable so can somebody keep an eye on the article. I will not revert again and if I am wrong then I will leave it to others, but I am sure this has been raised before, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Well I guess the question is, is this information correct? If it is then it would seem encyclopedic to mention nationality restrictions in an airline article. And I would phrase it in that manner and not Discrimination Against Israelis which is very POV. Are there other airlines that have policies like this? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Most airlines profile passengers and dont allow anybody they see as a risk to fly, it is fairly standard practice I would think. As far as I can see no American airline articles mention the No Fly List. MilborneOne (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

This is irrelevant. The claim is Saudia won't allow any Israeli passport holder to fly with them....which is no surprise since Saudi Arabia won't recognise Israel. — Lfdder (talk)

The text did have a citation (though I didn't check on it). Denying all Israeli passport holders passage certainly strikes me as far more than ordinary airline rules prohibiting passengers who are a danger from flying and thus notable. It would only be notable if this goes beyond enforcing the Customs/immigration policies of the country Saudia is flying to, though, and any such statement would certainly have to be rigorously sourced. The bit which said that denying Israeli passport holders passage is against the law read like original research, though, as it cited the US law (a primary source) not a secondary source, and it isn't clear to me that US law applies to Saudia anyway.

Remember that notability doesn't apply to content within an article; it only applies to establish whether an entire article merits inclusion. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 23:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for help from AfC

Please review Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lakeshore Express particularly for Notability, some help with MOS compliance would also be appreciated. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Notability of hijackings

This problem has just occurred following this discussion on User:Jetstreamer's talkpage. Question: Is WP:AIRCRASH applicable in case of aircraft hijackings? Especially concerning whether hijackings that did not result in any fatalities, aircraft damage or change in procedures should be listed in the respective airline articles. My understanding is that there seems to be consensus (achieved through normal editing) that hijackings are somewhat inherently notable, as can be judged from the fact that we have a List of aircraft hijackings. During the course of my recent editing work, I have come across articles like El Al Flight 426 or Lufthansa Flight 615: Neither of those meets WP:AIRCRASH (and I'm pretty sure there are similar cases). What are your opinions?--FoxyOrange (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Continuing with the discussion we both started at my talk page, I concur with you in that I don't think WP:AIRCRASH applies for hijackings, but the problem here would be to decide the episodes that warrants inclusion. The way I see things, WP:AIRCRASH are suitable for decision on stand-alone articles only. If so, do hijacking episodes need to be included at every airline article? I'm fine with this, and I can explain my rationale for inclusion stating that a hijacking is some sort of failure in the security of airlines/airports, they may be related to political upheavals, an so on.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

As you have said not really aircrash territory and hijackings should be covered by more general notability standards, I dont have a problem with hijacking in airline articles although we need to consider they provide the correct balance, we dont include some minor accidents to aircraft but include what could be considered minor hijackings. The stand-alone hijacking articles should also meet the general notability standards, if they are not notable they can just stay in the List of aircraft hijackings. I would have thought it was very rare that a hijacking was notable to the airport unless it shows a fairly major breakdown in systems or procedures. MilborneOne (talk) 19:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

For the time being, we are dealing with inclusions at airline articles only. I tend to classify these things. Is there any chance to reach consensus on the threshold for inclusion? I mean, do we filter these occurrences, or we just include every recorded hijacking?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Líneas Aéreas Guinea Ecuatorial

Hello. I've just created the article. Does anyone know the IATA code used by this airline?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Air Serbia vs. Jat Airways

These days me and FoxyOrange (talk · contribs) are very active here. I've started a discussion at Talk:Air Serbia on whether to merge the article into Jat Airways. Can you please drop some thoughts there? Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Reliability of aircraft fleet listing websites?

Hi all, once again a discussion between me and Jetstreamer might be of broader interest. This time, the question is: Are websites like ch-aviation, planespotters.net, airfleets.net, rzjets.net or aerotransport.org reliable sources? I've done a quick search how often they are currently used in Wikipedia articles:

Website	# of search results
ch-aviation	655
airfleets	400
planespotters	622
aerotransport	189
rzjets	104

One might also add Aviation Safety Network to that list, with over 2,500 hits. Judging from the fact that all of those website are quite heavily used, couldn't one just argue that they are considered reliable by normal editing consensus?--FoxyOrange (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I would consider most of the spotter fleet list websites are not particularly reliable sources, and I dont think any one is better than the others. We do have reliable sources like the annual flight international review, the aircraft registers and the company websites. One main problem is the need by some users to try and keep the fleet lists up to date almost daily and the spotter sites are seen by some as good for that, but we should remember this is an encyclopedia and it doesnt matter if the fleet list is a bit out of date as long as it is referenced. I also remember a few years ago that ch-aviation fans changed all the references to point to the favourite web site but I see from the figures that planespotters fans have re-dressed the balance. I dont think we need a wholesale removal of these sources without some thought but they certainly should not be seen in my opinion in any articles higher than start class. MilborneOne (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Honestly I think this is one of those cases where the primary source for what planes an airline owns of the airlines own documentation is the only reliable source. It may be primary, but I think it's the only reliable or trustworthy one even if they don't update it frequently, unless you can access the actual registration records which still won't tell you which are actually in active day to day service. Canterbury Tail talk 20:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I totally forgot to mention another reason why I frequently use those websites as references: They are useful for historic information, especially concerning defunct airlines and those that don't have a website. Again, it might be a bit loose-fitting, but I can't think of any quicker way to determine when a certain aircraft type was put in service with some (relatively unkonwn) airline of the pre-internet age. (Flightglobal is another search possibility, of course).--FoxyOrange (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not particularly concerned with historic fleets, but with current ones. As MilborneOne pointed out, Flightglobal is the most reliable source for all this stuff. The trouble comes when we try to source current fleet tables. It's true that Wikipedia is not a newspaper and we don't need to have fleet tables updated to the last minute, but if we do not reach some sort of consensus here, articles will likely not be altered by us regarding this matter, but by casual readers, and warring will be unavoidable.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Today, I seem to be in quite some "tabular" mood. Sent off by MilborneOne's opinion that those refs "should not be seen in any articles higher than start class", I did a quick survey of the best the WP:AIRLINE project has to offer: The 21 good articles about airlines. Look what I found ("x" means "source used").--FoxyOrange (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

In the above table, Planespotters does not appear in Kenya Airways, Ethiopian Airlines and Biman Bangladesh Airlines because I'm the major contributor to them and managed to removed the source from these articles. Can't tell about the others, though it shouldn't appear at Vietnam Airlines either, as I'm the second major contributor there.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but so far, I can't see what makes ch-aviation (which you seem to accept as a source for articles that you improved) more reliable than the other websites.--FoxyOrange (talk) 07:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not that I accept it, but I had a discussion with Sp33dyphil (talk · contribs) and we agreed to use it at Vietnam Airlines. I can move to official airline websites, that's fin e with me. The problem is that not all the carriers have their fleet included at their webpages. One of the cases is Libyan Airlines, where fleet information seems to be added/maintained by third party users. That's precisely why I'm trying to get thoughts on how to proceed. On the other hand, I'll be speedily removing ch-aviation from Ethiopian Airlines, so the fleet table is fully sourced with official information.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

 DoneEthiopian Airlines no longer has ch-aviation as a source.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Alaska Airlines, I was a major contributor to that article, taking it from start-class to GA. Alaska Airlines' fleet table uses the airline's website as a source because their website is one of the few I've found that actually lists the necessary info about their fleet on their website. It doesn't list orders but to find those out, I just go to Boeing's website and create a report to show all the unfilled orders that they have for Alaska. When it comes to Airfleets.net, Planespotters.net, and ch-aviation, I do trust the other info and don't see anything wrong with using those websites, but I don't trust the info it has for orders. I generally look at the unfilled orders on the aircraft manufacturer's website to find out the correct # of orders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Compdude123 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay so click here and scroll down to the "Sources" section to see where Planespotters gets its sources from. I could only find a list of sources for Planespotters.net; the rest of those websites, who knows?

Since Planespotters.net is the only website that lists its sources (thus proving that it's not a crowd-sourced website) does this make it more reliable for use on WP? —Compdude¹²³ 20:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

On-time arrival rate

Are on-time arrival rates worthy of a mention in airline articles? To me, they're information like list of hubs, the frequent flyer program, the codeshare agreements, the fleet info, etc. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

See Talk:United Airlines#On-time arrival rate MilborneOne (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Collapsible subsidiary lists in infoboxes

Please see this for an example. I'm not sure what the convention is. Personally, I don't like collapsible anything. It gets hidden in the printable version, the info can be overlooked, and if found, needs to be clicked. Please advise/revert/comment. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Anna. If something can be collapsed, I'd rather see it expanded by default, at least in articles.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

My views are 1) infoboxes should try and keep to the meat of the subject and deliver key facts 2) collapsible text in articles is generally not a good idea for access reasons. Exceptions occur to both these general statements but in this case I would say it's better not to collapse in the infobox. In the example of military units where the list of battle honours can get very large and dominate the infobox, I have seen the simple "see [link to section]" in the infobox. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I too agree. Stuff in infoboxes should never be in collapsible lists--period. —Compdude¹²³ 18:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC) EDIT: Well, okay, if it makes the infobox really long, it could be collapsed, as is done with Ryanair and Easyjet's focus city list, but otherwise I am opposed to collapsible lists. —Compdude¹²³ 20:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The Manual of Style has guidance WP:COLLAPSE. which is generally "don't". GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I think if the list of subsidiaries or hubs or anything else in the infobox is too long in a particular case and thus considering creating a collapsable list, then perhaps then we should deviate from our convention and not include them in the infobox at all for a particular subject, but rather in the article body. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

That's an alternative approach.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It would seem to be a resonable idea. MilborneOne (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

TonleSap Airlines

Hello, after a recent forum post on Airlines.net (http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5858868/) Regarding 1 757's and 1 737 of the airline (they appeared to be stored at Siem Reap) I checked the links (using Checklinks) and they all where dead, and used to direct to the airline's website. this raised some suspicion to me and checked their fleet info and to my surprise they have no aircraft at all (http://www.planespotters.net/Airline/TonleSap-Airlines) Since the airline appears to be defunct I think the article needs to be updated (defunct etc.) Any comments on this ? Redalert2fan (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, the first thing that comes to my mind is to try to find some news regarding the discontinuance of the services. Have you done that already?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I've found a source confirming the airline suspended operations here.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Two more useful references here and here.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I found the first one to, but didn't looked if someone commented already (my mistake). Anyways, are these references enough to conclude that the airline suspended all their ops ? Redalert2fan (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. But they are definitely necessary in the article to wipe out the dead links.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Roger that, I will make some minor changes, If anyone manages to find another link/ref it would be useful Redalert2fan (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Also any help on "fixing" this article will be helpful Redalert2fan (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Real airline: Total Aéreas de Portugal

Something does not seem right about the article on Total Aéreas de Porutgal. Is this a real airline? Although an airline fan, I don't edit on this subject, but do monitor and tweak some articles on Portuguese aviation (airports and airlines). But I am stumped. Does anyone have any proof that this airline exists, or ever existed? I've been to Airlines.net for images of the airline, checked the website references and "Googled" online but nothing more then info. The fact that it uses the TAP monogram, and references TAP Portugal, makes it difficult. But even there, there are no other references to a start-up (it was "formed" in 1991) or ongoing independent company. The article on TAP Portugal doesn't even mention a "Total Portugal" or "Total Aéreas de Portugal" affiliation. The editor goes by the "orginial" name of User:TotalAir; a recent editor, he/she created the article, and has now started editing on the airport-side of things in Lisbon. Anyone care to challenge this? ^{ruben jc} ZEORYMER (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

An AFDing candidate for failing notability.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

An TOA is disfuctional now from mid 2012, but we have a new buyer from SEP 2013. --TotalAir ^Talk 14:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like the article creator has a Conflict of Interest. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Tagged for deletion as a clear hoax, the icao code belongs to a British helicopter operator and most of the rest is clearly bogus. MilborneOne (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Air Lituanica

Hello. There's a discrepancy between another editor and I regarding the number of destinations that should be informed in the infobox of the article. The editor claims that number should also include destinations on sale, whereas I support including only those destinations currently served. Which is the correct position to adopt? Thanks in advance.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide we should only use the total of actual destinations flown to as provided by a reliable references. MilborneOne (talk) 17:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I've modified the article accordingly.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

GAR

Cathay Pacific, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Dana boomer (talk) 14:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Airphil Express

Airphil Express has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. adkranz (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Should AirUK, KLM UK and Buzz (airline) be merged?

In the end, it's the same company, isn't it? Both used the airline codes UK/UKA, and the (currently existing) overlap of the Wikipedia articles shows that it is obviously very difficult to keep them apart. The Air UK/KLMuk transition was only a change of ownership with subsequent rebranding, which should not warrant another article. With buzz, the situation looks slightly different: KLMuk and buzz were operational simultaneously, weren't they? Thus, one could keep those two separate (like Lufthansa Italia, which also never had its own airline codes). On the other hand, the aircraft of buzz had an "operated by KLM UK Limited" notice written on them... What are your thoughts and comments?--FoxyOrange (talk) 12:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks like KLM UK would fold into the backend of air UK where it is already mentioned, and in more detail than in the KLM UK article.GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I think Buzz should be left alone, it has a seperate code and had a distinct existence outside of KLM UK. MilborneOne (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Since per MilborneOne's latest edit Buzz indeed had a separate airline code, I trimmed the proposal to include only an article merger of Air UK and KLM uk. By the way, is it KLM UK or KLM uk? The articles are not consistent in that question.--FoxyOrange (talk) 14:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with the Air UK/KLM UK merger it didnt operate for long as KLM UK before it became part of KLM Cityhopper. I think the lower case uk is a marketing thing just used in the logo and promotional stuff, the legal name was probably upper case UK. MilborneOne (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Airline of Foo navigation box

Just been asked a question by User:Laurentiu Popa about the use of airline of foo boxes on the page of an airline belonging to an unrecognized state (Kosovo, Nagorno Karabakh or Northern Cyprus), should it have a box to the claimant country (Serbia, Azerbaijan and Cyprus)? Also, in the page of the airlines of those claimant countries there should be a box of the unrecognized states? any opinions ? MilborneOne (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

No to #1, because the 'claimant state' has nothing to do with these airlines; they're operating in the unrecognized state. How many airlines do these unrecognised states have? 1, maybe 2? We don't need a navbox to link between 2 articles, so that solves #2 nicely. — Lfdder (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I've sent all 3 of these navboxes to TFD: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 October 6. — Lfdder (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Jetlite title needs change

Over a year after merger the title still remains as Jetlite, the airline is now JetKonnect, website and all, kindly update the article title accordingly, thanks. 139.190.138.225 (talk) 07:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Done although not really a merger the company is still legally Jet Lite. MilborneOne (talk) 12:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Input needed: What makes an airline a "flag carrier"?

Please comment on this discussion, concerning the definition of a flag carrier. In short, the problem I found is that de facto, Wikipedia calls an airline a "flag carrier" if it has been identified as such by reliable sources, without specifying what makes it one. Thus, the definition of a flag carrier (an airline that "enjoys preferential rights or privileges accorded by the government for international operations") is turned into an empty phrase.--FoxyOrange (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I've partly responded at your concern at Talk:Lufthansa. The other discussions we engaged in here got stalled, as neither besides you and me commented further. Hope this won't happen in this case.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

⇒ flag carrier ⇒ "an airline that is or was owned by a government, often with the name of the country in its name", like "British Airways", for example. (Definition of flag carrier noun from the Cambridge Business English Dictionary © Cambridge University Press)[13] --IIIraute (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thats a pretty strange definition of flag carrier, one I doubt that would be recognised by anybody related to aviation. A flag carrier is a carrier that has been nominated by the government with preferential rights on certain or all routes as regard air service agreements between different countries. Most used to be owned by government but it was not the case of all and certainly not all had the name of the country in it. In reality with the wider ranging air service and open sky agreements between countries it doesnt really mean much these days. MilborneOne (talk) 18:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It sure is an odd definition; if it was actually true, then American Airlines would be considered the flag carrier of the United States, since it's "American" Airlines. However that's really not the case, because the US doesn't have flag carriers. —Compdude¹²³ 21:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Reminds me of an earlier discussion we had when an editor claimed Virgin Atlantic was a flag carrier because it used a union flag painted on its aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

...oh, really❔👉 United States Flag Carrier: "One of a class of air carriers holding a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity issued by the DOT, approved by the President, authorizing scheduled operations over specified routes between the United States (and/or its territories) and one or more foreign countries"🗽[14], and "often" = "frequently; in many cases"❕ (≠ "always")‼ --IIIraute (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Once again: The problem is that (at least concerning the deregulated airline market in Europe and North America) the term flag carrier is an anachronism. As the BBC puts it:

"Flag carriers were a product of the immediate post-war world when governments around the globe saw the emergence of air travel as a means to wave the flag for their respective countries. Airlines, which were typically owned by their governments, were not so much businesses as prized trophies - each a self-conscious statement that their country had a place on the global stage."

The article gives examples of airline tails that clearly depict(ed) national flags or symbols, like Alitalia, Swissair, Air Canada or British Airways and btw also identifies Pan Am and TWA as "flag carriers" (it's not hard to find further sources calling Pan Am "US flag carrier", take for example The New York Times. This follows the above definition, because those airlines had preferential rights or privileges. By now, many of them have been privatized and turned into "real businesses". Still, they are referred to as "flag carriers" because of their history. Thus, a contemporary use of that term is "former state-owned airline with a dominant role in the (international) air traffic of its country"; and I could even come up with sources calling Lufthansa "the former flag carrier of the Federal Republic of Germany" [15]. Obviously, calling a privatized airline a "(contemporary) flag carrier" is a mere perception rather than a statement backed by facts, which is why I proposed to have flag carrier renamed something like state-owned airline (a well-defined term).--FoxyOrange (talk) 11:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: state-owned airline and de facto flag carrier

I like FoxyOrange's proposal, with one tweak. I think there should be state-owned airline and de facto flag carrier. For example, UA and AA took over the de facto role of PA and TWA. This is similar to TAM and Gol taking over the de facto role of Varig. --71.135.163.123 (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Please provide at least a source saying that United Airlines or American Airlines serve as flag carriers for the United States.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I stand corrected: UA, AA and DL

ghosts of pan am chasing the legacy of america's flag carrier

--71.135.163.123 (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

It is mentioned nowhere in the article provided that AA, UA or DL are considered flag carriers. Actually, the only place where the term "flag carrier" appears is in the title. It is you or anyone else who is interpreting the flag carrier status of the current airlines, which is original research. Thus, the content cannot be included in any article.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Jet2.com

Just to note that Jet2.com has been semi-protected to encourage talk page discussion due a disagreement about the fleet list, I have reverted the addition before protecting the article so just seeking a sanity check. MilborneOne (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Need true definitive definition of an airline hub

There seems to be recurring discrepancies with what constitutes an airline hub and what disqualifies as an airline hub. Can editors of this WikiProject provide clear cut definitions of a true airline hub? Thank you.--71.135.163.123 (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

"A Hub and Spoke network is a route network where an airline will not only plan on transporting passengers between two points, but also to connect passengers between two distant cities via its hub." So if the hub is A and the passenger goes from B to C via A then A is a hub, pretty clear really. MilborneOne (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I think a key words here are "plan on". We have to be careful with this definition and not miss that, otherwise someone could say that any airport where a connection is possible should be considered a hub. A creative passenger can build connections in oddball places that nobody would consider a hub. Something like San Francisco to Denver via Orange County on United; just because that's possible doesn't mean we would list Orange County as a United hub. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

A key point may be A Hub and Spoke network as you mentioned. If the airline uses this model, then then their hubs can be identified as hubs. Does Southwest have hubs at McCarren or Midway? No. And they probably operate more flights from those two airports than many hubs for other airlines. But they don't have a hub and spoke network. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for the above responses. How should we deal with airlines that violate the objective definition of a hub? Airlines are increasingly doing this for marketing hype (hub exaggeration) or PR purposes (hub minimization). Airlines that engage in this practice make hub claims not grounded in reality. Thanks. --71.135.163.123 (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any verifiable reliable published sources that state such practices are happening, and for the reasons you've posited? To this point all you've presented are what appear to be baseless suppositions. If it's really the issue you're claiming it is, show us the sources. I honestly don't know if it's a real issue or not, as I don't read airline industry sources. I do read FlightGolobal's website regularly, and while they do deal with airline issues, I don't recall them ever mentioning this one in the last few years. - BilCat (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

They can claim it as a hub and we can quote them as doing so, but we should make it clear in the infobox with a note that the industry does not regard it as a hub. MilborneOne (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed for years at Talk:Delta Air Lines, particuly in regards to Delta's listing of CDG as a hub, and more recently LAX not being listed as a hub by Delta. I don't watch any other airline articles on a regular basis, so I can't say if this questioning of an airline's listing of its hubs is unique to the Delta article or not. The general consensus reached on the Delta talk page was that there is no single accepted industry-wide definition of what is or isn't a hub, nor is there a list of these hubs by industry sources. Given that, the general practice on the Delta article, and perhaps on other airline articles too, has been to just list the hubs or focus cities as designated by the airlines themselves in their published sources, without any comment one way or another on the validity of the airline's choices. Yet for some users, primarily IPs, this has never been satisfactory, to the point of accusing Delta of being dishonest, but of course without ever citing any reliable published sources to back up such claims. So, are there reliable published sources that are accepted industry-wide as authoritative on what is or is not a hub, preferably cwith lists of those hubs? If not, I don't see how we make notes in articles that an airline's choices of hubs or focus cities in articles are not recognized by the industry. - BilCat (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

You are right BilCat we cant really make statements that they are not considered hubs unless a reliable source says so. MilborneOne (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Why do you only watch Delta? Don't you need to watch other airlines in order to make an objective call about Delta? Here are some related sources:

• • • • • [16]
        • [17]
        • [18]
        • [19]
        • [20], which was mentioned before. --71.135.163.123 (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Will any of those sources actually accuse Delta or another airline of being dishonest in their choice of what to call a hub when I read them? If they do, and it's notable, then it should be covered in the main text somewhere, especially if it lead to sanctions or charges by a government for wrong doing. But I don't expect to find anything but confirmation that there is no objective standard for what is or is not a hub. - BilCat (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

No, those sources don't actually accuse Delta or another airline of being dishonest in their choice of what to call a hub. Yes, some of the sources do call LAX a Delta hub, but none accuse Delta of dishonesty or wrong-doing in not labeling it a hub. Again, it just proves their is no objective standard. - BilCat (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

You didn't respond to why you only follow delta articles. If you follow only delta, doesn't that introduce subjectivity? --71.135.163.123 (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

And you still haven't actually produced reliable sources that prove your assertions that any airline chooses hubs or focus cities based on marketing hype or PR purposes, or that "Airlines that engage in this practice make hub claims not grounded in reality", much less engage in illegality by doing so. And that's far more relevant to the discussion than what articles I watchlist at what point in time. I never said I hadn't read the other articles, nor watched them from time to time. My only point was that "I can't say if this questioning of an airline's listing of its hubs is unique to the Delta article or not." That's all. - BilCat (talk) 07:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • • • The following articles refuse to name CDG and AMS as a hub, or they call them a partner hub:
                  • Center for Aviation
                  • TheStreet.com

This could be understood to mean Delta decided to introduce fake hubs. --71.135.163.123 (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It's time to to drop the stick. The horse died long ago. - BilCat (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Instead of a dead horse, I'd rather hear from the horse's mouth, and I insist on speaking to an honest horse, such as Mr. Ed. --71.135.163.123 (talk) 05:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The obvious and clear answer to the original question is "no". Airlines have different definitions of hubs (or completely lack a consistent definition of hub). Delta calls some cities (but not LAX or SEA, which both now walk and talk like hubs) hubs, while American calls their hubs "cornerstone cities" (except when they call them hubs, and American generally talks about the "cornerstone city" of New York while some insist that JFK but not LGA is an AA hub), and Southwest claims they don't have hubs at all (even though they have airports like MDW in which they have enormous schedules with capacity well beyond local demand and banks of inbound and outbound flights). The US Department of Transportation has another definition altogether. "Hub" means different things in different contexts. Simply taking an airline's public statements is marginally-at-best consistent with Wikipedia policy, since the airline's statements are not a third party source.

The periodic attempts by some users here to impose a consistent definition that somehow applies to all airlines so that we can put cut-and-dried lists of hubs in airline articles and lists of airlines with hubs in airport articles is unsourcable and counter-productive. I think that listing the largest airlines at a given airport (by destinations, passengers carried, number of pigeons employed, whatever -- just pick one and be clear about it) and the airports a given airline serves most is much easier for readers to understand and for editors to source. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 22:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

What is the US Department of Transportation's altogether-different definition of a hub? How does is matter, regulationally or legally? Also, while an airline's statements are not a third party source, they are allowable, as long as it's simply to report what the entity itself says. - BilCat (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The US DOT defines a hub as an airport above a defined percentage of passengers US per year; it reports statistics for large, medium, and small "hubs". It's clearly not what we want to use here, but is just another example of the ambiguity of the term.

If we want to come up with a uniform definition of "hub" across Wikipedia, it would need to be verifiable. Because the airlines each use different definitions, citing what they say about themselves would not achieve that goal. (My main point was that that goal is unachievable.) —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 20:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Some airlines also use the term "base" (as Virgin Atlantic, Spirit Airlines, Aer Lingus) and some editors are treating that the same thing as a hub. A base or operating base for the airline may mean that an airline may base a couple of aircraft at that airport and will use that airline on certain routes. I am not sure if we can make those as hubs. Snoozlepet (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

As usual, I feel that the following gentle reminder is needed:

That said, it seems that it is impossible to actually come up with a satisfactory definition of what a "hub" is. If an airline wants to claim that a certain airport is or is not a hub, then that's their perogative. Some airlines deliberately operate a hub-and-spoke model (this is common in the US, but less so elsewhere), while others have de facto hubs (e.g. Southwest at Midway, Virgin at Heathrow, etc.). Then there is the issue of "focus cities", and I'm sure there is no satisfactory definition of that term either. --RFBailey (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

A whole banner is gentle?? And since we're advocating listing only what airlines call their hubs and focus cities, how is that not globally applicable? If non-US airlines don't list hubs, we won't be listing any, and if they do, then we will. Simple. - BilCat (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

While I take the point, it's mainly (though not exclusively) for US airlines and airports that this is an issue. By passengers carried (probably a more relevant number than passenger-kms carried for this discussion), the four largest airlines in the world are US airlines. Also, there are relatively few non-US airlines for which there's much ambiguity what's a hub and what's not (since most non-US airlines have service heavily concentrated in one or two airports), whereas there's some ambiguity about at least one hub for most if not all of the major US airlines. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 20:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Notability of LAX a stealth hub

I realize from BilCat that this topic may be tired, but I want to state that I am going to keep a lookout for media sources that point out DL's LAX problem/dilemma. DL has dumped their LAX hub at least two or three times, starting with the post-Western Airlines years. They are now experimenting with LAX, but it is operating in hush-hush stealth mode. They do not want announce LAX is a hub, even though it performs that function. This is because they are afraid of the negative publicity that could come about from dethroning their LAX hub later henceforth, since that would be perceived as a shrinking footprint. --71.135.163.123 (talk) 05:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh gosh, is this issue really such a big deal? Obviously, there is not the global definition of the word "airline hub". Therefore, the first choice would be to have a look what the airline says. Then, in case there is some kind of a discrepancy (for example, if reliable sources have a different opinion on what airports the airline's hubs are located at), one has to acknowledge that there is not "that one answer everyone is happy with." So, for the sake of a Wikipedia article, explanatory work would be needed (maybe in a whole section, at least by a footnote or something similar). Take the Lufthansa website as an example, where you can find the claim that their hubs would be in "Frankfurt, Munich, Dusseldorf, Zurich and Vienna". As the last two are in fact Swiss/Austrian Airlines hubs, they are nevertheless omitted from the infobox at the Wikipedia article (though, come to think of it, this removal is nowhere explained. It really should!). It all comes down to WP:V, as opposed to WP:OR. My two cents.--FoxyOrange (talk) 10:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

An airline hub is an airport theough wich an airline operates connecting flights.Sum Christianus (talk) 12:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

So MDW and LAS are hubs for Southwest in your mind? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

More information needed about the Spantax incident at Cologne/Bonn in 1978

Dear all, this image has caught my interest, as well as the story behind it. On 4 April 1978, a Convair 990 Coronado of Spanish holiday airline Spantax belly-landed at Cologne/Bonn Airport because "the pilot had forgotten about lowering the landing gear." The sources I could find during a quick online search (both in German, [21] [22]) indicate that there was a fire to the right wing and that the plane was "destroyed", but for some reason the occurence is not listed at the (otherwise quite comprehensive) Aviation Safety Network. Does anyone have more information that would help determining whether this indeed was a hull-loss accident, meeting the WP:AIRCRASH guideline?

And now for something completely different: Some time ago, I initiated a discussion at Pan Am Flight 110 (whether this article name is well chosen), which unfortunately lacks any participants. So, feel free to also add your thoughts and comments there; they will be greatly appreciated.--FoxyOrange (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• CV990 EC-CNG had 139 passengers and nine crew onboard when the pilot experienced asymemetrical flaps on approach to Cologne, He decided to land with flaps up and reduced power and turned off the gear warning horn. At this point No. 3 reverser latch unlock warning light came on. With all this going on they forgot the landing gear and the aircraft belly landed and slid for 1500m on the engine pods and rear fuselage. All four engines caught fire but it was soon put out by the emergency services (within 10 seconds! they just happened to be close to the final resting place) All onboard evacuated OK down the slides within a minute. Damage to the aircraft was "substantial" but not destroyed, it continued in service and was withdrawn from Spantax use and stored in 1982. MilborneOne (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Air Serbia destinations article

There was an article by this name but it now redirects to Air Serbia main article, can the destinations one be reactivated so the destination list can be added there? 175.110.230.50 (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Just replace the redirect at the top of the page, you may have to start again the older article only had three badly formed entries. MilborneOne (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Please use the correct destination format. We switched to a new, better, format a year and a half ago. Read all about it here. Thanks, Compdude¹²³ 17:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I know but I'm not changing anything, leaving it to others. 175.110.197.86 (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Nas Air (Saudi Arabia)

This carrier has been rebranded as Fly Nas or flynas if you prefer, though I'm against titles and articles in an encyclopedia stating the name in branding style http://www.flynas.com.175.110.197.86 (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Article title change requested. 175.110.197.86 (talk) 13:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, no, maybe, whats the delay for? 175.110.197.86 (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

 Article has been moved.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Aurora (airline)

I've just created the article for this new Aeroflot subsidiary. Enjoy!--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

SAT article title is Aurora Airlines too, why? 175.110.197.86 (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

That move was misguided. I'll request an admin to move the article back to its original title.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

HawaiianMiles Tier Levels

Someone recently added a fairly detailed table outlining the various tier levels of the HawaiianMiles frequent flyer program at Hawaiian Airlines. It feels like too much detail for Wikipedia, but I thought I'd get some opinions from others before wiping it out or attempting to trim it down. Thanks. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

This level of detail can be seen in other airport articles but it really is not encyclopedic in that Wikipedia is not a travel guide, a brief summary and a link to the airline website is all that is really needed. MilborneOne (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

American Airlines Group Inc.

Anyone want to tackle the creation of American Airlines Group as the successor to AMR Corporation and US Airways Group? One thought that I have would be to rename American Airlines-US Airways merger to American Airlines Group and make the current article the history section with a new lead. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Note that the merger is scheduled to occur early on Monday. So if no one acts or suggests a better solution, I'll likely proceed with the above suggestion. I also expect a flurry of edits to American Airlines and US Airlines to merge them. The problem there is that it will probably take a year for that merger to actually happen since a combined operating certificate is not easy to obtain. Likewise the destinations tables are going to see a flurry of changes. Those probably will need to be to show US Airlines operating as American Airlines or something like that. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The initial updates to American Airlines and US Airways should be to reflect the new parent company. For now, anyway, pretty much everything else about them will still be separate. Different mergers have had different events happen in different sequences; for now we should not be going as far to say "American Airlines operated by US Airways" or anything like that in destination tables. For now it should just stay "US Airways".

Template: Infobox Airline

On Template:Infbox Airline I propose to revert the order of airport of an airline. Actually the order is:

1. bases
2. hubs
3. secondary hubs
4. focus cities

For me is better put "hubs" at the top and then "secondary hubs" and "bases":

1. hubs
2. secondary hubs
3. bases
4. focus cities

What do you think about? --Wind of freedom (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• I dont think it really matters and changing high use templates can cause problems, best left alone. MilborneOne (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• The problem lies somewhere else: These terms aren't properly defined at all, which brings the route network classification at Wikipedia often close to original research. My perception is that an airline either has hubs or bases, depending on whether it's offering connecting flights or not. The term "focus city" is (to my knowledge) only used by certain U.S. airlines; nonetheless, on Wikipedia it is found in infoboxes all over the place: Are there any reliable sources, for example, that Lufthansa, Air France or Air Berlin refer to any airports in their route networks as "focus cities?". If you want to change something about the infobox, adding of a fourth "date slot" might be a more useful idea. Currently, there are: founded, commenced, ceased. Something like "company disestablished" is (in my opinion) missing; this might happen considerably later than the suspension of flight operations.--FoxyOrange (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• It's need of revert the order. "Hubs" are more important than bases, it's better put them on top and then the "bases".

Hubs is an airport where the airline offering connection flight. Base is an airport where the airline has one or more aircraft(s) based and employees too without connection, just point to point flight. Focus city is an airport (without aircrafts and employees based) where an airline has many flight for many destinations but it's not base or hub of this airline. --Wind of freedom (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with MilborneOne. There are other issues to focus our efforts in. The first that comes to my mind is that I've surveyed a number of airline articles in the last days, finding that most of them are poorly sourced, or even they have entire sections without references.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Infobox airline - logo/image

A user has requested that a caption field be added to Template:Infobox airline, I objected to the change as the field is used for a logo I cant see why you would ever need a caption. The request was due to an image being added to an infobox at Colonial Air Transport, I have since moved the image into the main body of the article. Just looking for a sanity check or other views at Template talk:Infobox airline, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Somehwat confusing situation

The largest regional airline in Alaska is "rebranding" itself again, and it's a little bit on the confusing side. See Talk:Era Alaska. Any and all input appreciated. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 04:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

AA's missed opportunity in New York: DL/US slot swap at LGA + loss of gained slots at DCA

A few months ago, I came across a good article that described this situation, but I cannot find the source now. The combined AA+US would have dominated New York, if the LGA-DCA slot swap between DL/US had not occurred. To add insult to injury, the USDOJ-mandated divestiture of slots at DCA caused a significant number of slots gained to be lost. Thus, the net benefit of the slot swap was mostly negated. The article went on to describe how this was an errant and shortsighted strategic move by US Airways. If other authors recall the airticle, can you provide a link? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airline hublet (talk • contribs) 18:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Little can be done here. You're not providing the article in question and you don't remember the source.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Really, I am looking for a similar article or blog. It doesn't have to be the original source. I think it is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airline hublet (talk • contribs) 23:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Little edit for airline destinations

Currently the template is this:

I think is better if it become like this (watch Australia on Coutry line):

In the second way we do not repeat always the names of coutries but we can write it just one time make use of "rowspan" parameter. What do you think about? --Wind of freedom (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It has already been discussed. Actually, I proposed these changes and they were not accepted.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know. But if it's possible we can discuss again about this.--Wind of freedom (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. The reason I was opposed to using rowspan was that it would cause problems with sorting by different columns. But it looks like as soon as you try to sort by a column, the rowspan gets broken and replaced with repeated countries (at least with Safari 6). In this case, I wouldn't be opposed to using the rowspan to reduce repeated names of countries, at least in the default view. However, this does assume that the country is always the first column, and initially sorted by country. This isn't the case currently; Delta Air Lines destinations has the city as the first column and the table is initially sorted by city, so having the rowspan for country wouldn't be much use. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Delta Air Lines destinations is not in one of the two approved formats appearing at WP:AIRLINES.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

But Delta Airlines destinations page is not in the approved format. From WP:AIRLINES, as Jetstreamer said, the country must be in the first column. --Wind of freedom (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to do the rowspan thing for the country column. At least you can still sort the other columns, and that was one of my main concerns when this was proposed before. So I would support this change. —Compdude¹²³ 01:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I also support the change.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Banner carrier (Commercial Aviation)

I think articles for creation gave us Banner carrier (Commercial Aviation). In addition to being incorrectly titled, I'm not sure if this article is needed. At most it would be a section of regional airline. Comments? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be a bit made up perhaps redirect to Virtual airline (economics)? MilborneOne (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I smell the work of the "airline marking brands" IP editor we've dealt with on and off. The wording seems a bit obtuse and I smell a bit of agenda pushing. Furthermore, I'm not seeing any references that support the use of the term "banner carrier" in this context; the word "banner" is used, such as If possible, the carrier is hoping to use the 58 gates it occupies in the airport's Airside Building to dock the regional jets that will fly the US Airways Express banner under the airline's new and wholly owned MidAtlantic Airways commuter subsidiary. in [23]. I'm tempted to AfD this thing soon if nobody beats me to it. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I have just nominated the page for deletion. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

US Airways Flight 1702

Looks like there was an incident at take off and we already have an unreferenced 1 line article. May need some eyes Vegaswikian (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Table colours on Turkish Airlines & elsewhere

The tables on Turkish Airlines & elsewhere look awful with the colouring and are unhelpful to those colour blind? and in general unhelpful to anyone, I cant see the problem with a plain table?... I've checked archive & seems consensus is to have them .... But I disagree with it so wanted to start another discussion..
Thanks -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a nice aesthetic touch to have the table colors match the airline's colors. However, I also have some memories that this has come up before, and there were concerns that doing so did have accessibility issues. So I'd be in favor of dropping the colors since accessibility should trump aesthetics. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted some of the changes made by Davey2010 (talk · contribs) ([24], [25], [26]), but they were promptly reinstated. Comments made by one user are not enough. I'm against the changes. According to WP:SILENCE, a reversion is enough to show disagreement, yet you completely ignored that:

“ Consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing) ”

There is no consensus here for the modifications to be implemented.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

This is why I've made a discussion..... I haden't ignored it/you hence the above....?, I disagree with you and you disagree with me So what do you suggest ? .... -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've also reverted since edit warring achieves nothing. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You already knew I was in disagreement (I told you so at your talk page) so I find your changes pretty unfair. I expected some comments from more users involved with WP:AIRLINE (I still expect them, actually). What about letting the discussion be open for another week? Should there be no more comments within a week, the next step is to request for comments, IMHO.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah damn sorry I'd completely forgotten about the talkpage, I'll give it 4 weeks or so as hopefully more should comment .... We hope :-),

Regards, →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• In the case of Turkish Airlines destinations, I think the red color is fine. I don't see anything wrong with using an airline's colors in the table header as long as all the text is readable. I may have said otherwise in the past, but now I don't really care. —Compdude¹²³ 00:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think the coloured table headings, which are found on very many airline articles, are fine, indeed I prefer them. As well as Turkish Airlines, examples on good articles are Scandinavian Airlines and Qantas. Obviously they need to be legible, but that can be achieved, and indeed there is accessibility guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style. I see no consensus here to revert them all to plain tables. Let them stand. Carbonix (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Lion Air destinations

Any idea before I take a pruning knife to it why Lion Air destinations list airlines other than Lion Air? MilborneOne (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the table includes destinations served by subsidiary companies that Lion Air invests in. Not the way we usually do it, but since it does indicate which subsidiaries serve which destinations, it doesn't seem too bad to me. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

OK understood it wasnt clear that these were part of the same group, I have tweaked the lead. MilborneOne (talk) 10:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 08:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC).

List of airline mergers and acquisitions

Todays daft question, anybody in the project seen List of airline mergers and acquisitions, if it was done properly it would be very long list. It also mentions stuff not related to mergers and acqusitions, any thoughts? MilborneOne (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd tend to AfD the article. It's almost unsourced. The 20xx in one of the entries for Air Berlin really bothers me: plainly WP:CRYSTAL.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I have added a proposed deletion tag to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Air Arabia destinations

Some one has mixed desrinations of Air Arabia Egypt and Maroc in the list when their respective articles have their own lists, KLM destinations also shows KLM city hoper routes, when city hopper has its own article and list. If this is allowed then kindly let destinations of airlines subsidiaries and cargo divisions having their own articles and lists also be included in main airline list of destinations such as Emirates and Emirates SkyCargo. 139.190.174.250 (talk) 11:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Found another British Airways and BA world cargo, separate articles yet main BA article lists cargo destinations too.139.190.174.250 (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Air Serbia

Is the Turkish Airlines issue subsection not needed in the article, it dosent make sense and seems more like a personal grudge the way its worded. 139.190.174.250 (talk) 12:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

/* Airlines and destinations */

New wikipedia user seeking additional information regarding rules for charter airlines.

Under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iqaluit_Airport there is a company listed with a charter origin fuel stop and destination. These I believe are regularly scheduled flights which are chartered and not scheduled for public seats. What is the rule about including private charters under Airlines?

Other airlines operate out of the Iqaluit airport with seasonal scheduled charter flights. Are those companies authorized to update the wikipedia page with new schedule information?

There are destinations with no scheduled flights. There are airlines who do regularly fly into those destinations. If the flight is non-scheduled but available for charter who is allowed to post availability on the airports/aerodrome page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.154.5.198 (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Fly540

This article needs major work. This is a low-cost airline started with funding from Lonrho. The article is extremely confusing as it currently stands. There are at least two other Fly540 subsidiaries in existence (fly540 Ghana and fly540 Angola) and both state that they are Lonrho Companies on website (http://www.fly540africa.com/). I think this article needs to reflect the fact that Fly540 is a low cost airline with at least 3 different divisions, all owned by the same parent, London based, African investment company. Although the 3 divisions don't connect through their routes, it should still be clear that this is one company, which, according to the current Wikipedia page, has long-term plans of unifying these three sub-networks into a pan-African network.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, this got even more confusing. It seems that this airline no loner exists and is actually part of Fly SAX. I could really use some help with this if anyone thinks they can untangle the mystery of this airline which seems to just be a string of mergers and parent companies that make no sense whatsoever.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

AirTran Destinations

Hi guys,

What do you want to do with AirTran Airways destinations as AirTran comes to a close later this year? Do we just keep removing them until there is nothing? I guess in retrospect, we shouldn't have been removing the cities all together as they were removed. Is some restoring needed maybe the cities at the time of the acquisition should be added back with their end dates? Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of going back and adding the dates they were ended or switched to Southwest. With many mergers, the list can be frozen at the time of integration since it all happens at once. But with this one, destinations are slowly being switched over to Southwest, so having a list of just the last few isn't too helpful. Actually, in general I feel it would be better to never remove destinations and just list end dates. I'd also be a fan of keeping start dates rather than removing them once service starts as it allows people to see how an airline's route network has changed over time, but that's really another topic. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

On the article main page, should we add the ceased operations date into the info box now or do we wait until the date comes? 68.119.73.36 (talk) 02:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

"Ceased operations" is clearly past-tense, so it would be inappropriate to put a future date in. I say wait. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Turkish Airlines destinations

Can someonee please take a look at the article? Erdo9313 (talk · contribs) insists on modifying the start date for Varna when there are two references supporting the entry. Their changes are not backed by any source. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

If you go to Turkish Airlines website you will see that no flights prior to 30-May-2014. The references for Varna on the Turkish Airlines Destinations page are questionable. First reference, timetable, can change anytime and is not 100% reliable as the planned flights can be cancelled or postponed as it happened in the past. The second reference for the Varna flight tells you what is going to happen. It does not tell you what happened. You cannot use this as a proof that the flights are started. The only way you can be 100% sure is that Turkish Airlines confirms/publishes the start of the new destination or you can book a flight on the airlines' website. For that reason Jetstreamer's assumption that flights have begun and he/she had a reference for it, is baseless. Erdo9313 ,22 May 2014. — Preceding undated comment added 14:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@Erdo9313: My reasoning relies upon WP:VERIFY. I'm not saying I'm right, I'm saying I'm following the verifiability policy. Do provide a new inline citation to a reliable source an change everything you want. Your actions go against a basic policy. "I know" and "someone told me" are clearly not valid sources. BTW, this is just another example that shows that you are not familiar with the above policy.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@Jetstreamer: I accept the fact that the source is reliable. But, the source says 'it will begin' not 'it begun'. It is only good for an entry in the destinations list with 'begins'. You need to verify whether it begun or not before you can remove 'begins'. Don't you think that it is the only logical way of interpreting the verify policy? Erdo9313

@Erdo9313: The policies have no free interpretations. Again, I agree with your speech, but in the absence of a newer source the references that were already in the article were the only ones available, unless a newer source appears to counter that information. Your changes had no support. Several hours have passed, but you still do not acknowledge my main conccern: that you are not familiar with that verifiability policy. We started this discussion because you did not provide a reference to counter the statements provided in the article. Another user did your work for you. Just for the record, here is another edit of yours where you added a reference that does not support your changes. Where in that reference is mentioned that TK flies to 250 destinations?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@Jetstreamer:  I provided the reference and Varna begins 30-May-2014. It is not another user's work. Other user's entry was 30-Jun. If you read my previous answer and understand it then you will at least go and try to book the flight to see if it started or not rather than easy way of assuming things. Erdo9313

You provided a reference but with it we're still in the same predicament as it does not directly says flights to Varna starts on 30 May, it only says there's an offer for tickets starting on that day.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Is ch-aviation that much better that linking is justified?

ch-aviation is a business that requires you to pay for everything except for basic information.

planespotters.net is like Wikipedia a community project. They also provide the average fleet age free of charge, at ch-aviation you have to pay a lot of money for accessing that information.

Both appear frequently in fleet listings, and the quality of the data seems to be comparable. Is there any good reason for favoring the the commercial site that provides less information for free over the site that provides the data for free? Otherwise linking to community projects (like Wikinews or planespotter.net) is better than providing links to a business. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 07:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

None of them are reliable sources. The use of official information, i.e. the one provided byu each airline, is preferred if available.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

What are reliable sources for information like the average fleet age? Calculating it from airline information would be an obvious violation of WP:PRIMARY. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 11:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

If it is not reported by reliable sources than we should not include it. MilborneOne (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

And I don't think the average age of a fleet is that important for an encyclopedia.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

And I would agree with that. MilborneOne (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

What non-primary sources are reliable sources for seating configurations, or are these also not that important for an encyclopedia? CorrectKissinTime (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

As I said before, the airline's official information can be used in this case, but you can use Flightglobal if you prefer. This is a reliable source. I've used it to source the seating layout for the future Qatar Airways A380 aircraft.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Where can I find the exact criteria to understand why Flightglobal is considered a RS but planespotters.net is not? CorrectKissinTime (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

And where can I find seating configuration information on Flightglobal without paying money or signing up for a time-limited account? As an example, what URL should be used as source for the seating configurations of Fly540? (Currently planespotters.net is listed as source, and the seating configuration in the table differs from the information at planespotters.net.) CorrectKissinTime (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

You have to remember that wikipedia is not a travel guide so the seating information is not really encyclopedic either unless it is unusual for some reason. MilborneOne (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Reply to your other question - Flightglobal is from a professional publisher with editorial control, planespotters.net is just a self-published fan site. MilborneOne (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

planespotters.net is not a self-published fan site like Wikipedia where everyone can edit the data. If you send in a correction, they ask you for the source and an editor verifies that the change is correct before changing the data. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

In wikipedia terms it is a self-published web site, operated by a fan, yes he gets help but still not a professional site. MilborneOne (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I also use Air Transport World (ATW) frequently. From time to time, both ATW and Flightglobal publish articles that mention seating configurations when airlines order or take delivery of new aircraft. In the particular case of Flightglobal, all the articles are searchable, yet some of them are under a paywall. Unfortunately, ATW has most of them uner a paywall.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's go back to my Fly540 example: Currently the source in the article is planespotters.net, and this source disagrees with the seating configuration data in the table in Fly540. Which URL should I use as source for the fleet table in Fly540, or should the fleet table be deleted? CorrectKissinTime (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

China or People's Republic of China in lists?

Since the country article is retitled now as China, what should be the country listed as in airline destinations, an editor using some old wiki tool is auto-redoing lists which revert the country to its full name, so if the list says China the tool will relist it as People's Republic of China, its also removing flags and undoing over linking. 175.110.250.59 (talk) 22:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME applies here.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Doha's old and new airport

Since all airlines are now operating at the new Hamad International Airport, how should we handle Doha International Airport on the airline destination tables for the carriers that fly to Doha? Should we remove the old Doha Airport completely as a destination or do we keep it and mark it as terminated? 68.119.73.36 (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a terminated destination actually. But we must me careful on providing a reliable source for the entry when marking it as terminated ([27]) or the edit would become unsourced.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I think mentioning airports in lists if they werent served simultaneously with another airport serving the city dosent make sense, that way lists would need to include many airports that were shut down or airlines shifted from, inecessary Trivia in my opinion. By the way this belongs in DOH and project airport talk pages, not project airlines.175.110.250.59 (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion belongs here because airline destinations lists are part of this project. As to the core of the discussion, we should define what ″destination″ means first. To me, the term involves not just a city but also an airport.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Airlines At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

International Airlines Group

An IP user keeps adding fleet information to International Airlines Group despite early consensus that it was not needed for holding companies, despite a talk page notice and two reverts the IP is continually re-adding a fleet list, anybody around that can help appreciated, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Reverted for the time being.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Air Algérie's logo

Hello. I'm having a dispute with an IP regarding the logo to be used in the article. Can you please drop some lines with your thoughts at the article's talk page? Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Article assessment for B-class

Can a regular contributor to this sub-project have a crack at some of the 7,400 odd articles requiring B-class assessment (mostly airlines and biography) ((I have done most of the rest))--Petebutt (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Templating airline fleet tables

I've been working on a template (series) for airline fleet tables. This would standardize fleet display and simplify markup in articles. I have made a page to compare the current and proposed styles for the tables. I wanted to allow discussion here before adding it to many articles, and will leave this discussion up for about a week to got responses. (Also, the project template page and style guide will need to be updated.):Jay8g [V•T•E] 16:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I cannot find the page where the discussion is taking place.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

This is the intended page for discussion. If there is somewhere else you think this should be discussed, where is that?:Jay8g [V•T•E] 19:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Far to complex most articles dont need this level of detail, and I am still not sure why seating arrangement doesnt come under not a travel guide? MilborneOne (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm commenting here as there seems not to be other place to do so. To me, the proposed templates are far too complex to edit and have many details that are not needed. I concur with MilborneOne in that much of the informaton is unnecesary, starting with the seating layout. Actually, I find much of the information in the current simpler form somewhat overdressed. Think about the IPs that are constantly modifying fleet tables accross all airline articles. We, the members of the project, will spend much more time fixing their edits if we proceed with this.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

This template is modeled after the tables already in airline articles...:Jay8g [V•T•E] 19:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Too much unnecessary information, like Milbourne said even seating should not be in the current table nor the number of passenger or weight of cargo.175.110.222.144 (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Air India Express and Star Alliance

FYI. There is an ongoing discussion here as to whether AI's affiliate with Star Alliance makes AIX also part of the alliance. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 17:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I have the same question regarding Scoot division of Singapore Airlines.175.110.222.144 (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

And what about Air India regional? 175.110.222.144 (talk) 14:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Air india Fleet

The notes in the notes section can be made simpler, dont know why people need to add stuff like "being replaced with 7xx or Axxx"" also why need to add sold to Etihad for the 77L does it matter who the aircraft was sold to? in prose its mentionable but not in table. 175.110.222.144 (talk) 14:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

TWA 800 passenger list table

There is no such list in the article, was it removed by poll or vandalism? all other crash articles have these lists. 175.110.222.144 (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean a list of every passenger on the plane? Because I don't think that's needed. Both the TWA 800 article and another one I looked at, ValuJet Flight 592, have a list of notable passengers and I think that's reasonable. The ValuJet article also has a table breaking down the nationalities of the passengers which I think is good, and I notice that there's no similar table on the TWA article. Is that what you're referring to? -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I have added a list as per other accident articles, of countries and numbers it needs to be checked and a reliable reference found. MilborneOne (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Checking history of the article it appears there was never any such information added there, one person had put in entire list of crew and passengers by name though years ago. I tried to make the notable passengers names and information into prose as well as put in some facts regarding crew with reference but all of it was reverted, have restored the crew part again since its relevant, also according to a CNN article there were thirteen nationalities onboard, cannot find any list showing people by their citizenship.175.110.222.144 (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I made the table from info at [28] but I added the citation needed with the hope somebody had a better list, the washington post list has a lot of unknowns. MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Flynas edit vandalism?

Is turning Jeddah-London-Gatwick to appear as Jeddah-London Gatwick vandalism? is correcting Calicut to Kozhikode per article title vandalism? or is it vanadalism to create a redirect i.e [Kozhikode|Calicut] so it appears as Calicut but redirects to Kozikode vandalism when a direct link to article exists under the correct title, in the Gatwick case the redirect is purely to make it appear right and not like three destinations, I mean should we start referring to Chennai as Madras again? Also Flynas rebranded and overhauled while still in operation so they are not flying to India for the first time, yes first time under the new branding, atleast thats what it seems to be, but its irelevant to the other points deemed vandalism. 175.110.222.144 (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I never said it was vandalism. I explained at your talk page that, related to the start of services to India, you keep adding statements that are not included in the source provided.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

This is again a WP:VERIFY issue from your part. Your talk page is full of warnings related to this.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

What does RV Vandalism mean then in edit summary note? Ok if the airlins insists its flying there for the first time then let it be, but what about the Calicut / Kozhikode issue according to wikipedia policy, the carrier may call it Calicut but ita Kozhikode at wiki, if the common name rule applies should title name be changed back to Calicut? 175.110.222.144 (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Warnings to ban people for minor edits, is taking things to the extreme, someone needs to look into this attitude practised by you. 175.110.222.144 (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Check out your talk page again. I used a disruptive editing template, not a vandalism one. The following two diffs also show your conflict with the verifiability policy: [29], [30]. As I already told you once, do not edit Wikipedia if you do not agree with the policies.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Is this the edit summary you refer to? It wasn't your edit the one that was reverted there. Indeed, that was vandalism.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

What am I doing thats disruptive? do we non wiki affiliated editors have no right to edit what we feel is right while reamining with in wiki policiies because some wiki editor has started hounding that article? whats your problem with Jeddah-London-Gatwick being changed to Jeddah-London Gatwick??? Why do you keep changing Kozhikode to Calicut even as [Kozhikode|Calicut]? isnt the article at wiki title Kozhokode, are you being disprusptive on purpose? I am following wiki policy here you are flouting it, will you refer to Mumbai as Bombay and Chennai as Madras in future aricles if the airline press release mentions those names instead? how abour Burma being listed as Myanmar only wiki calls it Burma, maybe that needs to be changed, answer these questions why are you avoiding them, if Caliicut which is Kozhokode at wiki and worldwide is being written as Calicut which is considered its common use name then why not change the article title back to Calicut? 175.110.222.144 (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The disruption came after I've explained this to you at your talk and you ignored my messages. Moreover, Calicut is the name that appears in the supporting source. What I used was a piped link, if a rediect bothers you. Again, there are policies here. Do not edit any more articles if you don't agree with them.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The three last edits you made to the article ([31]) have been reverted. It is more than clear that you do not understand how to build an ecyclopedia and what supporting evidence means. Starting with the "Codeshare agreements" section, the only source provided dates back to 2012 when the agreement was signed. You should provide updated sources to support your modifications, i.e. a link including current codeshares. As for the India-related stuff, you keep doing the same again and again. The source provided mentions Calicut and not Kozhikode, and nothing about a rebranding is said there also. I suggest you to read WP:VNT.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Please take this to the article talk page for further discussion, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I will make sure to write Madras, Bombay, Peking, Myanmar when sources mention those eplaces as such the next time, amazing double standrads just to prove yourself right, no Millbourne will not pursue it any further, just wanted to draw other editors attention to this thats why I discussed it here. 175.110.222.144 (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Just make sure to use piped links.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Air Serbia destinations - Varna seasonal service

The airline is suspending service to Varna for the winter season (starting 26 October 2014) therefore making this destination a seasonal destination. The route has been labeled as "seasonal" on the page but it has been reverted (removing the seasonal color label then saying "becomes seasonal from 26 October 2014) but undid again. Whenever looking at various destinations pages, don't we just marked it as simply seasonal rather than saying "becoming seasonal from 26 October 2014". 71.12.206.168 (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there a minimum number of destinations an airline must have before it can have it's own destinations table (on it's own wiki page)?

Small airlines generally have their destinations displayed on their own Wiki page and I see there are mainly two ways to show them there, a list and a table. I've heard some people say that the latter is only for larger small airlines with about 10 or so destinations and should be avoided for ones with fewer than 5 destinations. I would like to know if there are actually any rules regarding where a list can be used and where a table can be used.

Thanks, Rihaz (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The guidance is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/page content but we dont set a limit on the size where a table can be used and it is not not actually a requirement to change from list to table. Sometimes the table looks a bit daft with only a few entries but it is mainly a judgement call, a smaller list is far easier but once it starts getting larger or more complex then a change to table could be made. We still have some large airlines using lists so it is not mandatory to change and probably best discussed on the article talk page. If the list get to big (that is in proportion to the rest of the article) then it can be spun of into a seperate article, although note that others outside the project will sometimes oppose the creation of spin-off lists (which they have a right to do) if they are not big enough. MilborneOne (talk) 08:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Rihaz (talk) 08:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Garuda Indonesia Philippines

A user has just created an article for Garuda Indonesia Philippines and we have repeated efforts to merge the Garuda and PAL articles, I have deleted the Garuda Indonesia Philippines article as a hoax (none of the included information made much sense) but does anybody now what is going on here, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Tradewinds Airlines renamed

Since 2011 this airline is operating as Sky Lease Cargo with a complete new look as well as new IATA and ICAO codes, call sign remains same, is this really the same airline just renamed? Sky Lease website history page mentiones all of Tradewinds history as its own, anyways article title needs chaging. 175.110.223.208 (talk) 08:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Haajara Airlines

Dear airlines experts: Is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Haajara Airlines about a notable airline? The old AfC submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Airlines articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

List of helicopter airlines

Note a newly created article List of helicopter airlines, I have had to remove a number of helicopter operators as they have never operated as an airline just ad-hoc charter or contract work, I suspect there may be more. MilborneOne (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pinewood Airlines

Dear airlines experts: Here's an old AfC submission that will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable airline? Would anyone here like to improve the draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I cant find any evidence that it operated or even existed. MilborneOne (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Phoenix Airways

This article was prodded by an IP editor, on the stated grounds that "Reports have indicated that this is a scam and not a real airline". I found several independent, critical news sources [32][33] that appeared to confirm that this small Caribbean airline actually started flying (with problems and some unhappy passengers) in July 2014—and the airline also appears to have a functional website—so I added sources and removed the prod.

The prod was then restored, by an editor with a different IP address but the same geolocation as the first one: the edit summary reads: "The sources you mentioned were simply repeating press releases issued by the so-called "airline." There is no evidence that this is a real airline, and it has operated no flights." Since this second prod notice is disallowed by WP:PROD, I removed it.

There is enough evidence here to make it inappropriate to delete the article by a summary process like proposed deletion. On the other hand, I wasn't able to find any listing for this airline on any of the official websites of the relevant airports, although this could possibly be due to its recent startup. I would appreciate some scrutiny by experienced airline editors to see if the airline's existence can be better confirmed—or disproved. Thanks. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Fuzhou Airlines

Could someone please take a look and add the necessary bells and whistles. I'm not experienced with airline articles. Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: Thanks for creating the article. These [34], [35] are my two cents on it. More to come.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

EcoJet (airline)

I did my best to make this page look okay. This is a new airline in Bolivia so I'm guessing there's not a lot of Wiki editors focusing on helping improve these sorts of pages.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Zimbabwe flyafrica.com

Nowhere other than wiki does it say that this is the airlines name, its just flyafrica.com elsewhere. 139.190.165.153 (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The name of the article and everything else is supported by sources.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

JetKonnect article, what now?

Jetkonnect became Jet Airways from Monday, the LCC brand and service have gone, although Jetlite is the operating carrier for this, so whats the IATA and ICAO codes etc. what happens to the article? 139.190.230.234 (talk) 04:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines Flight 317

I've nominated the article for deletion over notability concerns. You're welcome to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore Airlines Flight 317. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Destination table purpose?

Firstly its strange how inactive this talk page has become compared to what it was uptil three years or so ago, secondly what has table format for destination list achieved that the text list wasnt doing? is it looking aethetically pleasing? not really, the text format was cohesive with wiki format all it needed was to drop the continents and list all countries alphabetically, no need to repeat country and city names either. The only positive is that terminated destiantions are now in the same list, yet there are people out there who are creating seprate lists for these plus domestic and international routes, but still again alot of former routes unreferenced so could be false entries, just like some people are sprucing up their home airport articles with fake seasonal and charter services, which may just be one off even if real and unverfiable. 139.190.230.234 (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want to become a defender of sourced content, please don't do this [36] again.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Pullmantur Air has changed its name

Now called Wamos Air with new livery[37], as part of Wamos Travel group. 139.190.230.234 (talk) 09:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Images are not reliable sources.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

AirTran Airways destinations

People continue to remove destinations that have already ended. I thought it was decided to keep these historical as the airline will be defunct in a week. Citydude1017 (talk) 05:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Skytrax/Garuda

Just removed to "it is the best airline" stuff from the lead of Garuda Indonesia as previous consensus was that Skytrax was not reliable or neutral. I did notice that the same article has a load of awards guff in a separate section that needs to be looked at. As we are not a travel or airline review website perhaps it is time we tidied up some of this stuff. MilborneOne (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Apart from what's mentioned above (on which I completely agree), to me the article needs a major cleanup.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Caribbean Airlines

Hello everyone. I think the category should be moved to Category:Airlines in the Caribbean or something like that because there exists an article with the same name and most (if not all) the carriers included in the category never had an affiliation with Caribbean Airlines. The hatnote also adds to my confusion.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

*Support change. Caribbean Airlines is the name of one airline, while the cat's scope is about all airlines based in the Caribbean. Potential for confusion is strong, and the proposed title (or Category:Airlines of the Caribbean) is in line with Category:Airlines of the United States or Category:Airlines of France (as examples). oknazevad (talk) 11:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• • On second thought, it's not the category that's misnamed, but the articles in it are miscategorized, as it seems that the true purpose of the category is to be the cat on the specific airline, while people are putting in the cat other airlines based in Caribbean countries, not realizing that country-specific cats exist and are the appropriate place for those articles. In other words, the better course of action would be to remove the articles that are miscategorized, not change the name of the category, as it is appropriately named for being the category for Caribbean Airlines. If the cat is renamed, then the specific airline will not have its category any longer. I'll work on that. oknazevad (talk) 11:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Follow up: It appears the addition of the carriers was from earlier today and entirely done by User:Nardisoero, who made a mistake about the scope of the category. I've undone those additions and am cleaning up the rest of the cat. oknazevad (talk) 11:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Your actions sound good to me. I was going to suggest that creating Category:Airlines in the Caribbean might be good, but it seems unnecessary since Category:Airlines of the Caribbean and Central America already exists, and doesn't hold airline articles themselves but rather subcategories by country. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
        • As this discussion points out, Category:Caribbean Airlines is ambiguous and should be renamed no matter what. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
          • I don't know if it needs to be renamed. It's the correct name for a category for an airline named "Caribbean Airlines". After all, the "Airlines" is capitalized. But the key thing is to make sure that the scope of the category is clear on the category page so that people don't make the same mistake. oknazevad (talk) 04:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Dallo Airlines & Jubba Airways

Daallo Airlines and Jubba Airways apparently just officially signed an agreement to form one larger company [38]. Jetstreamer recommended that I ask here what is the typical procedure for such conglomerations. Are the pages normally merged? Middayexpress (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Wait, the airlines still operate under their own names still. AcidSnow (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It may be better to just start a new article for African Airways Alliance and as it appears they will continue to use both names as brands just continue with the current articles but show they are part of this new alliance. MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Middayexpress (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Removing average aircraft age on the Fleet section

I have noticed on Philippine Airlines' article that the description about the average aircraft age on the Fleet section was removed because the editor said it is unnecessary. Do you guys think that it is right to remove the average aircraft age on the Fleet section? SkyHigher (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not an encyclopedic fact because it changes in a dynamic way and Wikipedia is not a travel guide or a newspaper. Furthermore, these entries are generally supported by unreliable references.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, it is difficult to source reliably and even if a reliable source was found it would become immediately dated and so of limited value as aircraft are added / removed from the fleet. I'd support removing the information as non-encyclopedic. SempreVolando (talk) 12:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with other comments, I am not sure what encyclopedic value it has, if the fleet is all new or very old and it has been commented on by sources then it can be put it in the history bit. MilborneOne (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I have always hated it and have sometimes removed it from articles. CH-aviation and the like always have caveats that the average age is based on those types which they have in their databases, so if an airline has types not covered then it's never going to be accurate. It isn't a useful indicator of anything either - a 30-year-old aircraft in service with a tier-one airline is going to be in better shape than a 15-year-old aircraft in service with a cash-strapped dodgy operator anyway. YSSYguy (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with removal. Too hard to reliably source, too transitory in nature for the amount of work needed, considering it is of extremely limited interest and of decidedly questionable meaningfulness. In short, what everyone else said. Nuke it. oknazevad (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Project guide updated. Fleet age information should not be included. SempreVolando (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Bhutan airlines or Tashi air?

The carrier is marketing it self as Bhutan Airlines both at website and on aircraft livery, why is the article named Tashi, tried changing it but its not being accepted. inspector (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Destination maps

User:Macadamia1472 has been adding a large map to airline articles, I am sure that previous discussions at both airlines and airports decided that these duplicate the lists and were not needed, do we need a new consensus to include or not? thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• I already removed a number of these maps. Macadamia1472 (talk · contribs) added them at airlines and the corresponding destinations articles, therefore duplicating the information. I'm against the inclusion of such maps. A discussion started at Tafeax's talk page regarding the matter. I've pointed there to gain consensus at WT:AIRLINES and WT:AIRPORTS.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
• I am a new user so I didn;t know about this project so sorry for doing it without prior consensus. To me the maps seemed to definitely belong on the destinations pages as this provided context of the source of the information and any caveats i.e. only seasonal. However the main reason I made these maps was to put them on the main airline pages so that the user can get a pretty good idea of where the airline flies without having to visit the separate destinations page and thus in my mind reached a balance between including the list in the main article and keeping the article of a manageable length. Furthermore I think the maps also provides relevant context to the main article by giving a broad overview of the airlines’s scope while also showing patterns, such as that Brussels Airlines has many African destinations, which dove tails nicely with the business strategy described in the article. Thanks, --Macadamia1472 (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • It's definitely worth a new discussion, it seems to me that the point that Macadamia is making is perfectly valid. A graphical representation of destinations is absolutely fine and if the only argument against it is "it's covered in the list of destinations" then there's no argument. We often use graphical representations of information on Wikipedia, why we can't use a map to describe destinations of a particular airline is beyond me. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
    • @Macadamia1472, MilborneOne, and The Rambling Man: As I said above, I'm against the use of these maps but if they are to be included, I'd simply ask not to do so at both an airline and the corresponding destinations article. What The Rambling Man points out is interesting and the effort put by Macadamia1472 in these maps should not be neglected. I agree with them that they definitely belong in destinations articles.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
      • The issues I've seen with maps in the past is maintaining them. I haven't seen a specific example of what these maps are, but in the past they've usually been images of some sort, generated with tools like FlightMemory or Great Circle Mapper. When doing something like this, someone needs to recreate the entire map from scratch (or have access to, for example, the original FlightMemory account used to make the map) in order to add or remove a new destination. If it's a hand-made image, they still need to go in with an image editor and make the change, and they might end up looking bad with different graphics programs and OSs having different fonts for labels, etc. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Maps should be from some wikipedia program that can be edited uniformly when needed, had there been no table format list for destinations and they were still listed in the previous text style minus the continent/region sub-sections then the maps could have been added to the side, like images are. inspector (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC).

Dead links in "Resources" section

Looking at the project page for the first time, particularly interested in the "Resources" section at the bottom, I find:

* FAA Codes --> leads to page not found
* IATA member airlines --> page not found
* aerosite.net  --> godaddy domain parking page
* eurocontrol.int --> page not found error

TZHX (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Wingtip devices notability

I believe past consensus here has been that Wingtip devices (winglets / sharklets etc.) fitted to aircraft are not notable for mention in the fleet section of individual airline pages. The project guide states that:

"Other than the number of seats other information on the aircraft (for example engines fitted or Boeing customer codes) should not be included"

I would say that means wingtip devices are not notable, but perhaps we need to be more specific and state so. Several articles still make reference to winglets / sharklets being fitted, and the number of each type within a fleet with / without them, and some users maintain that it is notable information. SempreVolando (talk) 08:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I remove such information whenever I see it, it's just fanboy cruft that the man-in-the-street would have no idea of what it means anyway. YSSYguy (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree, remove it. This is not a fansite.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Support the general view that they are not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I took the liberty of updating the wording in the page content section to clarify the policy. SempreVolando (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Mihin Lanka destinations

Kindly redirect this page as the table is too short and has been moved to main article. 139.190.230.234 (talk) 08:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I have undone the copy-and-paste edits to put the list in the main article, but there are enough destinations to justify a separate list IMO. YSSYguy (talk) 11:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Not completely sure the number of destinations warrants a stand-alone article.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

No worries, it is borderline. Feel free to boldly merge and redirect. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 13:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's wait for more opinions first.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss this at Talk:Mihin Lanka destinations. I have bought it up there since it is a suggested merge. Citydude1017 (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

What is there to discuss? short list no need for separate article, all lists of less than 20 destinations should be in main article. 139.190.230.234 (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Corruption at SriLankan Airlines

Issue raised at Talk:SriLankan Airlines. Mjroots (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Philippine Airlines destinations

Vandal is decorating the table despite having set it to simplified new format, flags, coloured bars and codes are being added, reverted once but he has done it again, keep a watch. 139.190.230.234 (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Anyone in admin take note is deliberatly doing it again and again despite summary notes. 139.190.230.234 (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I have already requested full protection, warned user, and reported him. Citydude1017 (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'v removed the flags and warned the user over a violation of MOS:FLAGS.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

User has been blocked for edit warring as he reverted Jetstreamer's edit and removed the warning at his talk page. Page has also been fully protected until 10 April 2015. 71.12.206.168 (talk) 04:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Fleet List Colours/Colors

Noticed a trend to match the table colours in fleet lists to match the corporate colours or such like, can you please note that this sometimes gives access problems per WP:COLOUR and should be avoided when used just for decoration, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

This had previously been discussed and there was consensus to use the airline/corporate colours.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Citation needed for the existence of such a consensus. Imho it's a rather weak reason to deviate from default WP colour schemes and as mentioned it presents WP:Accessibility problems. It gives the reader no new information that cannot be given by showing the logo or a photo of the aircraft, or simply stated in the article text. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Search through the archives for yourself. Citation needed does not apply here, this is not a content page. However, I don't have any problem with using the default combination of colours, but only after we agree on that.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I found this WT:WikiProject Airlines/Archive 6#Do tables and navboxes really need to match airline's colors? which is merely a perfunctory and inconclusive discussion, not a solid consensus setting "poll". I've seen as many airline articles that do not use the livery colours as those that do, so it's hardly a well established practice anyway. I think a proper RFC may be a good idea to establish a proper solid consensus. By the way, did you really need to be so pedantically litteral about my use of the term "citation needed"? You claimed that a consensus exists, I requested some evidence, then you basically blow me off. It's a well established principle (and simply common courtesy) that the onus of proof is on the person making the assertion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Dont have a problem with that but some of the combinations of coloured text on coloured backgrounds that have been done will cause access issues, one recent change added this to Brussels Airlines:

Aircraft	In Service	Orders	Passengers			Notes
			J	Y	Total

Try to image the effect on readers with colour of eyesight issues. We just need to take care on the colours used. MilborneOne (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree. The example above is really awful.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely agree; this example is almost illegible, even with no eyesight issues! These may be the airline's logo colours, but they don't use that combination for text on their website, etc. I have found the advice at WP:COLOUR very helpful, especially the suggestion to use Snook's color contrast tool when in doubt. - Carbonix (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Personally I think, that even if readable, some colour combinations while passable when rendered in bold font letters a metre tall on an aircraft don't work on the computer (or other device) screen with fonts at normal sizes. And how visible is the fine underline that indicates a tooltip is available to explain the codes J and Y. I'll also say in passing that for that example given capitalization under the MoS ought to be followed. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

SkyJet

Can someone review these edits, which seem to do useful stuff, but also to be, possibly, COI or NPOV. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC).

Reverted. Clearly promotional. Heck, there was even an exclamation point after an early sentence. It read like ad copy and needed to be reverted outright. oknazevad (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I was concerned that some of the changes in names might be worth keeping, for example Ted Foljas, as COO [39]. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC).

Air Asia Group destinations

Article has become confusing needs to be cleaned up. 139.190.230.234 (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Flynas

Hello there. Can someone please take a look at the article? An editor affiliated to the company is persistently removing propersly sourced content and making changes to the article as if it was the official website. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please intervene here? Ramslater1 (talk · contribs) keeps removing properly sourced information from the article.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Policy on leased aircraft in fleet list

Are these not allowed to be listed? why? some airlunes are solely flying leased planes, whats the issue if it referenced. 139.190.230.234 (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Leasing is so common it isn't notable. YSSYguy (talk) 13:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Does not make sense and makes it seem like article section is outdated wih missing aircraft, especially types that an airline might not own in its fleet, say a carrier has leased a 747 a type it dosent own be it or not in the carriers livery, so the 747 article can list the carrier as an operator of the type but the airlines article cant show it operating a 747? or cant the 747 article mention it either? so the article would remain devoid of some airlines that only operated the aircraft type on lease, or is it all dependant on which editor is watching which article? as mentioned if you start following this policy for some airlines it would leave their fleet section empty since they dont own any. 139.190.230.234 (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: It's not a policy but a guideline that can be changed provided we have consensus.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

You may be getting different kinds of leasing mixed up, in a lot of fleets aircraft are leased from a broker or leasing company, the aircraft is part of the airline fleet and tends to be for years rather than weeks, these would always be listed as part of the fleet. Some airlines when they are short of capacity will dry or wet lease aircraft as required if they are busy this tends to be weeks or months. When the aircraft is dry-leased it is operated by the airline so could be listed but mostly these are short term and may not be notable. Wet leasing is when you borrow somebody elses aircraft to operate for you, it is not operated by the airline although sometimes it can be painted in the airline livery, these should not really be listed. MilborneOne (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I misunderstood earlier, I thought the question was whether or not to mention that this or that number of a/c are leased in the Notes section of an airline article's Fleet table. Of course leased aircraft should be included in an airline's total - but there is no need to mention that they are leased. YSSYguy (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree - it is not really notable. MilborneOne (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree - not notable. It may on occasion be very relevant to the business, for example when an airline that is short of cash does a 'sale & leaseback' to release some money, but that possibility/event would appear in the body of the article/history. Or we may choose to include an airline's leasing policy, or change of policy, in the article. However in the fleet lists themselves, as you outlined above, MilborneOne, we should include the aircraft without stating whether or not they are leased. Apart from anything else, I would have thought the detail would be difficult to source accurately, and next to impossible to keep up to date. Carbonix (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The advice in WP:AIRLINE-FLEET-LIST should definitely be changed were it says that wet-leased aircraft should not be mentioned. Leaving out long-term wetleased aircraft is nonsense as some airlines then may be shown has having barely any aircraft at all as happened with Air Lituanica for example where of four aircraft three were wet-leased. Therefore our articles are factually wrong there which should not be forced based on a unconstructive WP advice. --83.171.148.241 (talk) 09:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

In the particular case right above, the airline itself did not include the three wet-leased aircraft at the official website. I don't see the reason the article should.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

flydubai destinations vandal

someone is adding flags and creating separate list for terminated routes in there, fixed it some but they reverted it, so undid it again keep a lookout 139.190.230.234 (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Fleet List Orders and Options Split

Where an options column is available in a fleet list should the options count towards the order total or be as its own stat. Korean Air is an example where they mad a purchase of 30 for their fleet with 20 options but a user has added the options to the order value as well as noting it as an option. Linkops85 (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

An option is not an order and should not be added to the orders total. MilborneOne (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks MilborneOne. Ill get Korean Air Corrected Linkops85 (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

It has also been agreed not long ago not to include an ″Options″ column in fleet tables.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Air Arabia Maroc

Hello everyone. Can someone please take a look at the article? A new editor, AAMaroc (talk · contribs) has been making unexplained/unsourced changes. Furthermore, they are duplicating the content of Air Arabia Maroc destinations. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello dear User:Jetstreamer

We only want to update the info about the airline, the info we posted are neutral and objective, the COO, destinations and fleet has changed and need to be updated — Preceding unsigned comment added by AAMaroc (talk • contribs) 14:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Read the core content policies.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Flag carrier

@Jetstreamer: The above changes are well sourced and explained relevantly. Please do not claim others edition as unexplained before looking up the source provided thoroughly. Conversely your source to your claim on Cathay Pacific as flag carrier is likely an unreliable source, with only a small caption written by a private writer on Internet.

In fact such claim (that you keep reverting) has been criticized since 2010. The above changes (which you keep claiming they are unexplained) are just an clarification. Kindly note that if you need further information or discussion please refer to Talk:Flag carrier. You are actually in a wrong location for discussion on this topic. --Feber (Talk) 18:05, 8 July 2015 (GMT+8)

Can someone please take a look at the article. Feber (talk · contribs) keeps removing Cathaty Pacific from the table on almost unexplained grounds since there is a reference supporting the entry. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This further shows the user above does not understand the verifiability policy. I've reverted it.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Horrible English in United Club JFK

Dear Wiki-"airheads",

I think some bozo is doing some very bad editing of the United Club article. I wanted to call you attention to this problem. Please fix it because I cannot edit on my mobile device.

--50.141.35.45 (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Pease refrained from calling other editors "bozo and airhead".

HOP!

HOP! is not an airline, but a brand under which Airlinair, Brit Air, and Régional operate their flights. Air France has now a project of actually merging them, see this article in French. I edited the articles, but there are probably additionnals corrections that need to be made. Slasher-fun (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Any reason why the website talks "HOP! SA" as a French Limited Company with a board of directors and a airline operating certificate? MilborneOne (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

"HOP ! is a 100% subsidiary of Air France. It is legally structured around a public limited company controlling 100% of the three airlines Régional, Brit and Airlinair.
The company also owns the trademark and domain names for marketing all HOP ! services.
It has regulatory attributes that enable it to market flights under its own brand name. It has an air operator’s certificate (AOC) and a license to market the flights.
Each subsidiary company retains its status as an airline and the related regulatory attributes (license and AOC).
As the marketing of flights and services is centralized by the public limited company, service or delegation contracts (including sales) signed with Air France replace previous franchise agreements." http://www.hop.com/sites/default/files/press/pressekit_hop_jan13_va.pdf Slasher-fun (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

So that makes it an airline then. MilborneOne (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Well except they don't have any aircraft and all the HOP! flights are operated by either Airlinair, Brit Air or Regional. If you book a flight on Air France website, it will say either "operated by HOP Airlinair", "operated by HOP Regional" or "operated by HOP Brit Air". Slasher-fun (talk) 08:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

How is that different from Delta Connection, US Airways Express, Air Canada Express, QantasLink and other airline subsidiaries that do not operate any aircraft? Sovereign Sentinel (talk) 03:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not, but the articles were stating that Airlinair, Brit Air and Airlinair merged into HOP!, which is not (yet) the case. Slasher-fun (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:IATA members

This template Template:IATA members is being used on nearly 300 articles but I cant see any value as a navigation aid, do we really need it in airline articles? MilborneOne (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to add sub-categories of the regional offices to Category:IATA members, just like the template. sovereign°sentinel 09:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Defunct airlines

Recently an editor, Alvorado (talk · contribs), who has done a lot of good work in creating several "List of defunct airlines of countryX" has been changing the categories of them to have them end up like this, this and this. I don't think that putting them, unsorted, into Category:Lists of airlines by country is useful. It bloats the category and everything is listed under "L". I started fixing them up to be in Category:Lists of defunct airlines and "Category:Defunct airlines of countryX" but they keep reverting back.

I've tried leaving messages at their talk page at User talk:Alvorado#List of defunct airlines of Canada and User talk:Alvorado#Defunct airlines but have had no reply. I know they are paying some attention to the messages because they have stopped putting in the non-free logos.

So am I correct in thinking that the lists should be in the defunct categories rather than the current airlines?

By the way some of the "List of airlines of country" lists have non-free logos in that will need removing. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, since I posted this they have started putting back the defunct categories but leaving the current airlines category. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Just a reminder that non-free logos are not allowed in airline list articles, these are seen as docoration and unlikely to have an acceptable rationale, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: Maybe you intended to post your comment in the previous thread?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Jestreamer, Ihave removed the sub-heading. MilborneOne (talk) 08:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Atlantic Star Airlines

Atlantic Star Airlines is a proposed British airline, IP users are adding press releases verbatim into the article. I have tidied it up to be a bit more neutral and encyclopedic but if others can keep an eye on it please, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft additions to WP:AVLIST

You are invited to comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Lists/draft. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

One time only flights

Are one time only flights notable to add? As they are not included in airport articles should they be included in airline articles? RMS52 (talk) 06:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

'Ad-hoc' charter flights are rarely notable. They should not be included in destinations lists and the same applies to airport and airline articles. SempreVolando (talk) 09:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. RMS52 (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:UNBROKEN issues

Biruitorul (talk · contribs) has been altering the name of different cities, bypassing redirects, across some airline articles. Here [40] is one of their edits, which I have reverted. The articles involved are Tunisair, China Airlines and Etihad Airways destinations. WP:UNBROKEN is crystal clear regarding the bypass of redirects. Thoughts? --Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• See WP:BRINT: "Spelling errors and other mistakes should be corrected. Don't link to a misspelled redirect." Diacritics are part of the correct spelling of words, which means Dusseldorf should be changed to Düsseldorf, Zurich to Zürich, etc. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Dusseldorf is neither a mispelling error nor a mistake. It's an anglicism. Same applies to Zurich, and so on. I've been through a similar discussion some time ago: This is worth reading.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Bit of an issue generally with diatrics on English wiklipedia when they are hardly ever used in English, not that anybody listens but if it is not on the standard English keyboard then should we be using it? MilborneOne (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• I am also seeing a couple of article where the name "international" is included in the name but the official name doesn't have "international". Also, on the Icelandair destinations page, a lot of the airports are shorten to like "San Francisco Airport", "National Airport" (Brussels), "Orlando Airport", etc but it is dabbed with the correct name. Citydude1017 (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Aircraft orders in infoboxes

Current consensus I believe is not to include aircraft orders in infoboxes, User:Lukozade123 has noted we dont have any so has been adding them, I have asked them to come here and discuss, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

As noted in Template:Infobox airline: fleet_size The number of aircraft currently in service. Only aircraft in service should be listed here – i.e. no orders, options or aircraft in storage should be included. SempreVolando (talk) 11:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree Only current fleet should be located in infobox - not orders, they can change before delivery. David J Johnson (talk) 19:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

What SempreVolando pointed out is crystal clear from the guidelines. Many people still believe this is a fansite, not an encyclopedia.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

One of the issues which I recall came up during the original consensus not to include orders in the infobox was that for most airlines, orders will be for fleet replacement rather than growth. For Virgin Atlantic, for example, a fleet of 40 aircraft plus 17 orders for the B787 would have appeared as 40 (+17 orders), but in fact the orders were nearly all replacements for older B744 and A343/A346 aircraft, so in this case the reader may reasonably have the (false) impression that after deliveries the fleet would be 57 aircraft, in fact it will remain close to or at 40. SempreVolando (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Horizon Air a defunct airline?

A registered editor insists Horizon Air is a defunct airline and the lede sentence should say "...was a regional airline..." We're at 3RR. Please weigh in. HkCaGu (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

All flights are marketed and sold as Alaska Airlines in which Horizon Air's website redirects to AS's website. I believe it should state that "Horizon Air is a regional airline brand operating for Alaska Airlines". Citydude1017 (talk) 03:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Star Alliance GAR

Star Alliance, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. sst✈ 14:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

American Airlines destinations

American Airlines announced that it will begin service to Merida beginning March 3, 2016 as per http://hub.aa.com/en/nr/american-airlines-customers-gain-more-access-to-mexico-with-new-service-to-merida but a user continues to remove it as he thinks that it is crystal ball and that only destinations currently served are to be added and not future (because being WP:CRYSTALBALL). The airline already is selling tickets on the route and schedules are officially announced. Since future destinations are not being added, then why is SYD included since the destination is not currently served. Thanks! 97.85.113.113 (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

If a new service has a date and a reliable source then we would normally add it, I dont think we have ever been restricted to "currently" served, in fact we should have more "former" destinations but this is sometimes hard to reference. MilborneOne (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I have restored the addition, as well as the Sydney entry removed and removed the tag all added as part of the dispute. Purely disruptive WP:POINTy nonsense. oknazevad (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The table needs to be consistent with other airline articles. The table needs to have a color-code key for seasonal, terminated, future, hubs, and focus cities. Also, the table needs to be updated too and when US-AA completes there merger on October 17, 2015, all the US Airways destinations needs to be merged into this article once US Airways ceases to exist. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 04:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

AA550 / EI110 - Input

Some input regarding recent minor / non-notable aircraft incidents at AfD AA50 and AfD EI110 from project members would be appreciated. Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 18:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

User keeps messing dest box airport appearance names, AIV and out-of-project admins useless

User:Tlrtls1478 has been unnecessarily changing the appearance names of airports in airline destination tables. This user has been repeatedly warned and I had reported many times to WP:AIV to no avail. Out-of-project administrators do not understand the issues or severity of this problem. This use still has not been blocked even once. Would any administrator active here please take notice and act? This user is apparently a non-English speaker and will not engage in any talk or leave any meaningful edit summaries. HkCaGu (talk) 07:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I have given them a 48-hour block to stop them being disruptive and to consoder a request to discuss name changes. MilborneOne (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Tus Airways

This airline seems to be a start-up airline based in Cyprus, and until just now the article implied it was already operating, but I could find no evidence of this at all. According to the airline's Facebook page,[41] the airline is still in the process of acquiring it's AOC and is hiring cabin crew. Is this article WP:TOOSOON and a candidate for deletion or should we wait and see if it gets into the air? AnotherNewAccount (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Beijing Capital Airlines

The carriers name seems to be just Capital Airlines, a disambiguation will also need to be created in this case if title is changed. 139.190.208.216 (talk) 05:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

You can request a page move directly at the article's talk page. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Air Tahiti

It would be good if someone could take a good look at the Air Tahiti article, which reads like it was written by Air Tahiti staff in some ways. It even uses the first person to describe operations in one place! —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 13:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Emirates destinations pages up for deletion?

Both EK and EK SkyCargo routes pages have those notes on top, why are they getting deleted? Mustangmanxxx (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

American Airlines destinations

Since US Airways no longer exists, all former US Airways destinations needs to be included in this list. Need to find someone experienced to do this. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 06:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Page has a deletion notice like for some other airlines routes, why? Mustangmanxxx (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

See below, and please comment at the deletion discussion. oknazevad (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Mass AfD tagging

Mdann52(alt) (talk · contribs) is mass-AfDing airline destinations articles. What's going on here?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Following the discussion at WP:ANI#Disruptive editing by *AirportUpdater*, there was some discussion over whether articles should be deleted, so I nominated them at WP:AFD. That's all. Mdann52 (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mdann52: Such a mass nomination is too premature. Right from the start, the discussion should take place here and not at WT:ANI, where not everyone was aware of that thread.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

No need to discuss here first - for deletion discussions, taking straight to AfD is usually better then generating a local consensus here. Mdann52 (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

That's your vision, not mine. A large number of articles are involved here, so the best way to get consensus is to discuss the matter at the appropriate project.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

In my experience, the best way to get a neutral discussion on such topics is AfD - that's like saying that any bulk deletion of related BLP's (which I've seen before) needs discussion over at Wt:WPBLP, which it doesn't. Mdann52 (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Mdann52. The ANI, and the subsequent Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Removal of destinations of airlines?, was more about "airline and destination" sections in articles about airports rather than stand alone destination articles. I also see that you put a large list of articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pages in Category:Lists of airline destinations but haven't tagged some of those articles that they are up for deletion. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: there was some discussion about this action as well, hence why I nommed this lot. As for the tagging, it's in progress (I had to go offline to addend to some urgent business, I'm loading AWB back up now). Mdann52 (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Why maintain structured data here instead of at Wikidata?

I notice we have a lot of tables on airport articles that are highly-structured, and language-independent. I was wondering whether it might be better to maintain the corresponding information at Wikidata instead. I mocked up a quick template to show how it might work. Compare the current Denver_International_Airport#Airlines_and_destinations with this version that's based on the information at Q330015. What do you think? Bovlb (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, if we maintain this type of information in WIkidata instead of directly in the English Wikipedia, then our work can be seen in every language Wikipedia. Cheers. Bovlb (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Strong oppose Under no circumstance should we rely on wikidata for article content. Information there is generally unreferenced and we wouldn't know if it has been changed on wikidata, so vandalism and the like would be undiscovered. Data field names on wikidata are subject to changes without any real discussion, and any consideration about how data is used on other wikis (Wikiproject:ships has been burnt by this in the past when fields in wikidata that were used to autofill empty infobox fields had their names changed on wikidata without duscussion, wrecking hundreds of articles here. Allowing wikidata to write our articles for us neans that it would be much harder to edit our artticles, with editors having to leave wikipedia, and stuggle with the incredibly poor user interface over at wikidata.Nigel Ish (talk) 06:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - I agree with User:Nigel Ish, this would make maintaining articles much harder, not easier. - Ahunt (talk) 13:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - per Nigel Ish, WP:SHIPS have decided against Wikidata for very good reasons, which would also apply to this WP. Keep en-Wiki info on en-Wiki, where it can be controlled. Mjroots (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)`

Thanks for the feedback. I wasn't aware of the history with WikiProject:Ships (1, 2, 3). That would have been useful to know before I started on this. Those discussions are largely about whether to use Wikidata to supply a default value for an infobox field for ship class. Reading through them, I see the following issues raised:

1. The Wikidata property conflated the ship class and type, making it impossible to style them separately.
2. The Wikidata user interface was or is dreadful. (It's unclear to me whether it has changed significantly since then.)
3. The property in question had been proposed for deletion, at least partly because of the lack of use by client projects.
4. Wikidata would benefit from the subject-matter expertise available in the English Wikipedia WikiProject.
5. Wikidata property ids are opaque, but the label-based aliases are unstable.
6. Wikidata claims may lack references, multiple values, or temporal qualifications.
7. Vandalism on Wikidata could affect all client projects but wouldn't show up in local recent changes.
8. It's unclear to WP editors how to edit the Wikidata value or to override it locally.

Did I miss anything important? Bovlb (talk) 01:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Northeast Airlines (2015)

User:Yellowliner is apparently a company representative for Northeast Airlines (2015). I've warned for COI, but I could use help keeping an eye on his edits. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed the pretty clear COI involved. Frankly, I'm not even sure if a paper airline that's only coverage is essentially two stories regurgitating press real eases is even notable. It hasn't flown a single flight, even as a charter. (Unlike its most similar competitors, National, which has gotten back into pax ops after being a cargo-only airline, and has scheduled flights for later this year, and the new Eastern, which is already flying some charters and owns its own birds. But it's the obvious way the editor(s) are using Wikipedia to promote the existence of their startup that bothers the hell out of me. oknazevad (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, they seem to be operating as if WP is their home page until their actual one is up, if ever. - BilCat (talk) 07:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Watched. - Ahunt (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Changed the name to Northeast Airlines (2014) as the article says it was formed in 2014, although little evidence provided. Took out the Boeing order as nothing on Boeing website or any other that I can see. Anybody know if the 737-400 exists? MilborneOne (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I really think it would be best to stub this down to the information actually supported by the refs, which isn't much at the present. - Ahunt (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Oddly enough a search of the FAA registry shows 12 aircraft registered to "NORTHEAST AIRLINES INC", none of which are a Boeing 737, instead mostly long-gone Convairs and Bristol Britannias with old cancelled registrations, plus one unassigned reservation from 10 Oct 15. That may be a reserved N number for the Boeing 737, but, if so, it proves that they haven't got it yet. - Ahunt (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

In an early version of the article Yellowliner put "We have purchased our first Boeing 737-400, N73NE, which will be delivered to Clearwater early 2016." MilborneOne (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Smells like COI to me! - Ahunt (talk) 00:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

+

Poor English grammer and speling in Destinations ➡ Route Network

	+	
	+	

The last sentence regarding the JFK/EWR "slot swat" needs much work. --66.87.119.93 (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.118.133 (talk)

Eritrean airlines routes

Why have some destinations been removed? they were there all these years seeking citations and when a few refs were added they are accused of being blogs and images, and all those verfied destinations have been removed by this editor jetstreamer who always seems to practice double standards. Atleast let the destinations remain there with citation needed tages, as for Pakistan routes that image was of an officiual advertisement in local language promoting the airline services, I mean what the fuck are you all about? decide for once. inspector (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

These destinations have been unsourced for a long time. You added sources that are not considered reliable. I explained this in the edit summaries of my last edits to the article.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)