Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Airport notability guideline

I've yet to get through the archives, but I'm wondering if there has ever been any discussion on Notability, and how it relates to airports. A question was posted at the aviation style guide here, and because nothing is yet written out in the (still in its infancy) Aviation Style Guide/MoS, I'd like to get on this. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 17:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, whatever happened with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (airports)? What is the current practice for naming airport articles? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there's something a bit wrong with naming practices. Who ever refers to Heathrow and Gatwick as 'London Heathrow Airport' and 'London Gatwick Airport' and to Newark as 'Newark Liberty International Airport'. Though I've generally believed the official name of an article should reflect the official name of the noun the article is about, it seems that per WP:NAME an article should be named to reflect 'common' usage. NcSchu_(Talk) 18:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If one may read past talk histories, its apparent that Airport articles has been bucking the trend and using only official names. There are pros and cons for doing this, but may I also remind that common usage naming is not a binding requirement, and can be ignored in specific cases, arguably such as this one.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that this topic did get picked up again later. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/Notability (talk). Ikluft (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

just clarifying...

you ARE NOT supposed to have a section on a page for an airport with FORMER airlines and destinations...correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duhhitsminerva (talk • contribs) 03:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not? If there is information from reliable sources, historical use of airports can indeed be notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Malay or Caticlan

I just wanna clarify on how we're suppose to list the destination on airport articles. Because Godfredo P. Ramos Airport which is located in Malay, Aklan. However, on the timetables of the airlines serving (Asian Spirit, Cebu Pacific, PAL Express, SEAIR) the airport, it is stated as Caticlan. The Caticlan article on Wikipedia also redirects to Malay, Aklan. pikdig (talk) 09:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Would somebody please answer my question. pikdig (talk) 10:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Airport list style

Is there an accepted way to format an airport list? List of airports in Algeria is nice for smaller countries won't work very well for some of the sub lists of List of airports in Canada, or will it? List of airports in Pakistan is pretty good too (almost FL quality).

As a second part, why limit List of airports in the United States to "public use airports providing scheduled passenger services with over 10,000 passenger boardings per year" (compare List of airports in the United States#South Dakota and List of airports in South Dakota), when it could be divided up just like List of airports in Canada. If I proposed dividing the US list up, would it get support? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 09:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the Canadian model. I'd support reorganizing the US list to the Canadian model. - Canglesea (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Support but I would suggest that, based on the explanation in List of airports in the United States, that it be moved to List of primary airports in the United States prior to updating the article. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 19:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Nifty. It's kind of silly to claim a list of airports in the United States and then surprisingly exclaim that it's only for the big ones. The Canadian method makes more sense due to the size. NcSchu_(Talk) 19:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I put a page move request on the page, just to make sure everyone interested can chime in, but it can probably be moved in a couple of days. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it, the List of airports in the United States is not "limited", but rather it is an expanded version of the format used by List of airports in Canada. Due to the large number of airports, both countries use multiple pages containing smaller lists (by state in the U.S. and by name, airport code or province in Canada). Both pages mentioned above have links to those lists (on the U.S. page, the state name above each section links to the full list of public airports for that state). Both pages also include direct links to Wikipedia articles for major airports: NPIAS primary airports in the U.S. (over 10,000 boardings per year) and NAS airports in Canada (over 200,000 passengers per year). Obviously there are many more NPIAS primary airports, but the concept of both pages is the same. The list requires no additional maintenance since it transcludes the airport data from each state list. Also, the table formatting allows for sorting the list by name, airport code, passenger boardings, etc. -- Zyxw (talk) 01:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Technically that's correct, but I think the problem lies in the way it is presented. The title is "List of airports in the United States", so before you get to the page you're expecting to see either a full list of all US airports, or a list of sub-lists. When you get to the page the first line tells you its a list of airports grouped by state, etc... but the first state, Alabama, has only 5 airports listed on the page (The second line explains that this is not a full list). The second part of the page, the TOC would logically take you to the state list in full, but it again only takes you to the partial list on the page. Finally the full list of airports for each state is found with the piped link in the table, but just by looking at the table, the first link, ALABAMA looks like a link to the page on the state, not a link to a list. On the Canada page it is very explicit about where to find the List of airports in British Columbia. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 02:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have updated List of airports in the United States to address some of the concerns mentioned above and in the discussion at Talk:List of airports in the United States. The template of links to the state lists is now at the top of the page. The second section now has links to the portions of List of airports by ICAO code containing U.S. airports. The third section contains the list of primary airports. -- Zyxw (talk) 04:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Oregon Airports

A while back I went through a started stubs for every airport in Oregon. Public and Private. I have a user now going about an tagging the articles for proposed deletions. I am just curious of a concensus of this project of keeping these. To me it makes no sense to go through and create red-links after a seed has been placed for each field to be expanded on. Thoughts?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trashbag (talk • contribs)

The question of notability of Airports has come up multiple times, which is why I think it would be a good idea or formally adopt some guidelines, and have them written out on the project page and at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide. Someone needs to look over the archives, see what has been discussed so far, and write a proposed guideline to discuss. I've got several project on the go right now so I can't get too involved, but I'm going to remove the prod messages from those pages and link to this discussion. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of your consensus here, all articles must abide by notability standards. If the place is not covered in independent sources, then it is non notable. Private heliports, unless covered in another source, and that means something other than a site listing their airport code and FAA listing, are non notable. Undeath (talk) 01:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, hate to break it to you Undead but the FAA is the source for airport information. Please see previous discussions at the Bruce's Airport Talk Page. You have no argument from me that when I originally whipped up these as a newby I did not list that as the source and it should be cited. But, the FAA form 5010 is the source for everyone on airport data. --Trashbag (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Question Wouldn't it be "the source" in the US only? What about airports outside the US?--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI: the notability topic did get picked up again later. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/Notability (talk). Ikluft (talk) 16:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Former and proposed airlines serving YVR

I just moved Past and Future Airlines serving YVR to the above. Any thoughts on a better name? Is it encyclopedic? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought somewhere in this project it was suggested that adding former airlines was not encyclopedic in airport articles! Cant see why proposed new routes could not be in the article if they have proper cites. Suggest deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 10:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that former airlines serving the airport is not encyclopedic, but I'll go along with that if it was the consensus. Proposed to me is a bit tricky, as sometimes things get far in the future, and the word "proposed" suggests things that may never happen or may be years away (like the Philippine Airlines MNL-YVR-SAN service). Regardless, there's not enough content there to warrant having it on its own page. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm so-so on past airlines. Personally I think the page is kind of pointless as it now stands. Past airports really need to be referenced and I think they verge on irrelevance unless they are made to have substance rather than just being a list. Future airlines probably violate WP:CRYSTALBALL unless they're definitive, in which case they should be kept with the other destinations anyway. NcSchu_(Talk) 17:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Unnotable Articles: Consensus Needed

I have recently found a problem with some airport pages. I do not think that an airport is notable if they are not covered in multiple third party sources. I do not believe that an FAA code is enough. The site you are getting the codes from is just a list, which is not enough for wikipedia. But, I am aiming at private airports and helipads. I have found a really big problem with the helipads. A helipad for a hospital is not notable, unless it can pass WP:N. In my opinion, a helipad should not have it's own article if it is privately owned. I think that helipad page should be merged with the article about the owners.(i.e. the hospital or organization that owns it) The same should go for private airports. The FAA code just confirms it's existence, which is not near enough for wikipedia standards to be met. I see a great number of non notable airport pages out there, and nothing is ever done to add reliable sources/notable sources to it. The FAA souce is just a list, which should not even be on the external links section other than to prove the existence of the airport. I need the viewpoints of you guys here. Undeath (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd actually agree with that - there are a lot of unnotable articles about these airports out there. I would suggest these articles be deleted, but with careful evaluation of whether they are or are not notable. Perhaps just a list of these airports/helipads with there codes (there may already be one, I'm not sure) would serve the purpose far better? Could you give an example of an article you believe is not notable? Callumm (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is an example. St. Elizabeth Hospital Heliport. Undeath (talk) 18:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, totally agree with that one, a pointless article! It would be an extremely large task to get rid of them, and a similar sized one to make a list of them. Any ideas as to how we should (if at all) go about this? Callumm (talk) 12:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability is going to vary based on each case. Many of these can establish notability based on incidents that they were involved in. However a good number may not. A strong case could be made that none of these should be deleted, and they should be merged into the article on the complex they are located at. The case of St. Elizabeth Hospital Heliport is interesting in that if that one is merged, it needs to be replaced by a dab page since there are other heliports with the same name, '8MN7' is an example. So I think it is clear that any of these with problems need to be merged, leaving a redirect or dab page, and not deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want me to, I will round up a list of all airports that I think are non notable. (i.e., the heliports and other little grass landing strips) Undeath (talk) 05:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be great if you're up to it! Callumm (talk) 07:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is the beginning of it. Undeath (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a couple I have watchlisted in case someone decides grass strips are not very notable. Chadwick Airport is a 1600 ft grass strip in someone's backyard, recently survived afd despite no assertion of notability. Stoney Point Airfield is a 2500 ft grass strip in Georgia. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I put a prod tag on that second one. There is no way that is notable. It's like the neighborhood pool for rich neighbors. Undeath (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize you were going to prod it, I thought the list was going to be part of a larger effort to make an airports notability standard. Since the Chadwick Airport article survived, doesn't that make it the minimum notable "airport" article? The Stoney point one is much more notable than that one, it actually has its own website, while Chadwick has nothing except that it exists. If Chadwick Airport is now the minimum, doesn't that mean all published landing sites can be included? One possible method for US airports to help establish some kind of benchmark of notability is the published Airport/Facility Directory here. Looking at Oregon and Georgia, neither Chadwick or Stoney point are listed, but there are still many airports in the directory. I would think if it's not in the A/FD and there are no notable incidents or news articles about it, then it wouldn't be notable. That might be a good place to start from, otherwise any grass landing strip is going to be added as a stub, like Bruce's Airport. Something needs to be established in this project, otherwise people are going to waste a lot of time creating stubs to de-redlink the list of airports pages, while others are wasting time trying to delete them. Is there any consensus or ideas for an inclusion guideline to be used by WP:Airports? --Dual Freq (talk) 05:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I only prodded this one because it's just a few neighbors fun strip. There was nothing to merge it to. Undeath (talk) 06:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Category renames

Can a few other editors drop in on this rename request Category:Aircraft Ground Handling? I'm not sure what it should be but the proposed target seems to read oddly to me. Maybe there is a better choice. At this point I have no opinion. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Article creation assistance

There's a new template Template:WPAVIATION creator that can be used to assist in creating new articles. It will start things off by creating a page with all the standard information/headers/infoboxes, etc. You just have to fill in the blanks and save. It's still in the early design stages, so check it out and let me know how it can be improved. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Nifty. NcSchu_(Talk) 22:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Neat! - Canglesea (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Destinations by region?

User:VAIO HK seems to have been adding collapsed tables to airport articles listing the destinations by region. I'm just wondering if this is something we had talked about since I just don't see the point in having a list that for all intents and purposes is redundant. NcSchu_(Talk) 17:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Redundancy is in the eye of the beholder, for what appears to be "useless" to some may be a boon to others, especially those who want to see at a glance the geographical extent of air services offered from the said airport. I personally find it very useful when trying to, say, list out all the North American airports served from Heathrow, without having to manually identify the airports by location from the gigantic airline/destination lists and then sieving out the duplicate entries due to multiple airlines flying to the same location(s).--Huaiwei (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking along the same lines. It is redundant since the information is already there, contained within each listed airline, but having them grouped by region is good as it gives a quick overview of the extent of an airport's service. Destination maps, as on San Diego International Airport can achieve the same result, but as images are harder to maintain than text. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I find the listing of simply continent and then airport to be particular useless for my geography skills. It seems to me you can really only see that the airport has flights to a location you are already aware of, in which case it adds nothing extra. Saying that in Heathrow, for instance (as that is where I fell upon this table), there is a flight to a place called Rijeka in Europe isn't particularly useful given that I don't know where that is. And as I'm assuming it's supposed to be a more at-a-glance piece of information, it seems to defeat the purpose to require me to navigate to the specific page in order to figure out this location. While I do agree it's interesting to break down the destinations this way and I appreciate that they're being added in a collapsed-default mode, I think they need to be tweaked before I actually see them as a benefit. NcSchu_(Talk) 19:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the usefulness of any section should not be defined by those with limited knowledge in related areas. There are in fact many who study international transport networks who would find this very fundamental to them. To the novice who is confronted with the question "which airport in Europe has the most extensive aviation connectivity?", he would invariably pull up the corresponding airport articles and start comparing the destination lists, count the number of destinations, note those which appear in one but is missing in another, and will be able to categorically make statements such as "Airport X has excellent connectivity to North America, but looses out significantly to Airport Y in its connections to Africa" or "Airport Z has flights to more destinations, but a significant number of them are to domestic destinations only with very little international destinations". Of course, there are numerous other factors to consider if one is to conduct in-depth research on this topic, but to many elementary students out there, this kind of analysis is already good enough to earn them grades!--Huaiwei (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Airport

Please see Template talk:Infobox Airport#Automatic conversions and the section below. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 09:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Busiest Airports in Europe

A user has been adding the navbox {{Busiest Airports in Europe}} to airport articles, I have removed a few of them. I am sure we have discussed this or a very similar navbox before, it is just a large collection of links of the busiest airports in Europe in 2007. MilborneOne (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 7#Navbox:Busiest Airports in Europe and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 August 11#Template:Busiest airports in Europe. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks CBW we should have done that last time! MilborneOne (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:WAD

Please see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 August 12#Template:WAD. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Airport moves

I just going to sleep and dont have the time to go through Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive airport page-moves? properly. Can someone take a look and see what's going on. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Airport notability proposal

(discussion moved - see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports/Notability)

Breuner Airfield (RC model club private facility)

I need to let the WikiProject Airports folks know that a debate has been made challenging the minimum standards of an airport article. There's a new article for Breuner Airfield for a remote control model club's private facility. In satellite imagery, it was observed to have a 300 ft paved runway, with "X" painted on both ends (prohibiting use by aircraft). The author really wants to call the facility an airport, even though it is not FAA registered and therefore doesn't have an ICAO, IATA or FAA code. (And he claims he's not a member of the RC club - which makes it perplexing why he's so interested in pursuing the matter at all.) He has for several days been doing variations on the theme of adding the article to Category:Airports in the San Francisco Bay Area, List of airports in the San Francisco Bay Area and Template:Airports in the San Francisco Bay Area, as well as editing the text with criteria for inclusion on these pages. He re-starts the same old discussion on the talk pages of these pages proposing changes of criteria to consider Breuner Airfield an airport or otherwise allow it to be included. When I had to stop short of the three-revert rule, I asked for help from admins and got some. One admin reverted the categorization and listing calling it "absurd". Another noticed the inevitable conclusion that Breuner Airfield doesn't have significant independent refs, and did a prod and then AfD nom. That discussion is in progress at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breuner Airfield. The AfD is turning up a surprising number of keep votes. Though one of them also posted on the author's talk page, "I've got your back." So it appears there may be canvassing for keep votes. Personally, I looked for significant independent refs, and would have added them if I had found any - I don't believe they exist. Even if notability as an article is determined, it just isn't even applicable and certainly not notable as an airport. But the author is trying to portray the categorization of the field as an airport as a him-vs-me issue. So to solve that, this needs to be more than just me. He outright ignores my advice, including that without an ICAO, IATA or FAA code it doesn't meet criteria to be considered an airport. And he again starts the same assertion on a another talk page somewhere each day or so. Ikluft (talk) 04:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

As expected, there was more on scattered talk pages today. This time they were suggestions on two category talk pages asking to change the definition of the categories to not require an ICAO, IATA or FAA code in order to consider it an airport. How low do you want this to go? It needs responses from more than just me. See Category talk:Airports in the United States by state and Category talk:Airports in California. He's doing this because he was told in Category talk:Airports in the San Francisco Bay Area that the standard for an airport (requiring an ICAO, IATA and/or FAA code) comes from the parent and grandparent categories. Ikluft (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Call them by what they are Category:Model airplane fields. They are not airports. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be helping. The author continued forum shopping today with a post on Talk:List of private-use airports in California. I posted a response there to make sure he can't claim no objections - but more objections would help. He also reverted my revert of his addition of the RC model club field to List of private-use airports in California. I can use others' help with that because he seems bent on an edit war again. Ikluft (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I listed the talk pages that were used so far in a warning note on the user's talk page: User_talk:Myheartinchile#Forum-shopping_for_miscategorizing_Breuner_Airfield_as_an_airport. He left this response on my talk page: User_talk:Ikluft#Forum-shopping_for_miscategorizing_Breuner_Airfield_as_an_airport. So it seems he has no intention of cooperating. Unless someone can help defuse this, I'll probably have no choice but to ask for help from admins again soon. Ikluft (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The article's AfD ended in delete so that hopefully closes the matter. Ikluft (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Using WikiTravel as appropriate external links?

Should anything from Wikitravel be added to the external links sections to an artciel. Cause John F. Kennedy International Airport and JetBlue Airways have a link about them from WikiTravel and I was wondering if it was appropriate adding them? 74.183.173.237 (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

NO WAY!! Using refs from another wiki site, is not trustable material. However as an External Link it is okay, but for an actual footnote, no way. -Marcusmax (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I would agree. The question appears to be about External Links, and Wikitravel seems like a good site to link to, comparable to the Memory Alpha (a Wikia-hosted wiki) links on Star Trek articles. Per WP:SPS, wikis are generally not considered a reliable source and shouldn't be used as a reference for content in a Wikipedia article. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

London City planning issues

Third (or fourth) opinion appreciated: Talk:London City Airport#Planning controversy. Thanks/wangi (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Since the POV pushing appears to be from anon accounts, I semi protected it for 10 days. If the article is cleaned up before then, I can remove the protection early. This should allow time to correctly source and cleanup the article to meet WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

O'Hare International Airport

Someone is adding allegedly new EK and LA flights to O'Hare International Airport, without providing the sources. I've already reverted the article twice, so I am not doing it again, but can somebody confirm these "new" flights? Or if they are non-existent, can somebody watch this article as well? Cheers. Elektrik Blue (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Note also left on anon-user's talk page. Ikluft (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Cargo Services

User:Spikydan1 added scheduled destinations to a list of cargo carriers at Newark Liberty International Airport. I removed these because there was no source given for the information and again because the source stated by User:Spikydan1 was that he monitored the Port Authority's Flight View System. Because the 'source' was not a published, reliable source for getting scheduled flights for cargo carriers and that it bordered on original research as User:Spikydan1 himself retrieved information from watching the flight view I thought this violated both WP:RS and WP:OR. I'm just wondering what other people think about this in case the user decides to add it again. NcSchu_(Talk) 15:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Try to politely take the discussion to the talk page. Yes, so far it looks like original research. Maybe the existence of the info can lead to finding a reliable source. Or maybe not. But it won't happen in I'm-reverting-it-no-I'm-adding-it-back on edit comments. There isn't enough to have a discussion there. Try to help the newcomer feel included in the discussion whatever its outcome. Ikluft (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's wise anyway to include cargo destinations as they are so fluid. What routes they fly, where they stopover, whether they carry the same flight number back to their base/hub are hard to track. If a particular airline's schedule isn't fluid, it's probably already published in paper (i.e. no "OR" necessary). I think throughout the whole project we should only include the airlines but not destinations. HkCaGu (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

merged Kingman Airport and Industrial Park into Kingman Airport (Arizona)

This may be good for a laugh... I found the articles Kingman Airport (Arizona) (created 2005, emphasis on current airport status) and Kingman Airport and Industrial Park (created 2006, emphasis on WWII airfield history) both referred to the same airport, KIGM. I merged the pages into Kingman Airport (Arizona). Ikluft (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

On a more serious note, there may be more of these to watch for... articles about former WWII air bases and containing content about the current airport, possibly unaware that an article exists for the current airport. I looked around and easily found another one of these waiting to happen... the WWII air bases list for Arizona had a redlink for Falcon Field Airport which I made a redirect to Falcon Field (Arizona), an article which has been around since 2006. There may be more. Ikluft (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a some WWII stuff has been added for AAF fields and they reference the new airport names. If the editor did not check out the names for any red links to the current airport names, we could have duplicate articles created. This probably need to be checked out. {{USAAF Training Bases World War II}} may be a navbox that gets you to all of these by state. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Very Odd Table of Contents Placments

I have been trying to figure this out, TOC's are being moved into the WP:LEAD sections of airport articles, it looks very odd. Is this a new standard, we are using on airport articles?? Examples include General Mitchell International Airport andCincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Marcusmax (talk • contribs) 16:57, 24 August 2008

I think User:Dhammerindy has decided he/she doesnt like the white space next to the TOC so he/she is working through American airports changing them. No it hasnt been agreed just a new user being bold. Dont think he/she realises he/she has a few thousand more to do if they want them all the same. Perhaps we should invite him/her to comment on this page. MilborneOne (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I have left a note inviting him/her to comment here.MilborneOne (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Greetings. I had no idea such a group existed otherwise I would have brought up the TOC change idea here first. The madness behind the method was to create a more uniform looking page. Pages with more content often had huge white space areas. Wrapping the text around the TOC made for a cleaner look and less scrolling for the user. I might miss one but I think I've done ORD, MDW, MKE, STL, IND, CVG, CMH, CLE, and DTW. If the group would prefer this not be done let me know and I'll pull the changes. If the group likes the new look the change is easy to make. It is the very first line of each page that I had changed. You simply add the line that includes the TOC to go with the new look or just delete that one line to undo the change.

Dhammerindy (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I recommend that we stay with the default used on almost every page. No reason for these articles to look different then every other one. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok I'll redo those pages later on this evening. Nice to know this group exists. Next time I get a crazy idea like this I'll float it by everyone first. Dhammerindy (talk) 08:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The TOC placement should now be back to its original place. Dhammerindy (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing this up for me, I thought I missed some big new formatting thing. Oh and sorry for not signing my username on my original message. -Marcusmax (talk) 02:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer Reviews Going Nowhere

It seems as if our Peer Reviews, and A-Class Reviews are not moving at all. I figure if all our users make it it a priority to review just one then things can go forward. A-class reviews especially, as there are many that need to be passed or failed. -Marcusmax (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggested guidelines for 'External links' content

I added guidelines and suggestions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content#External links on what to include or avoid in External links sections of airport articles. I had a strange circumstance which prompted me to do this. An editor whose self-proclaimed specialty is removal of linkspam went through my edit history and removed links to any kind of businesses and organizations at all the airport articles I've recently edited, including some links I added and any other external links that were already on these pages. I restored one page with an explanation on its talk page. Aviation-related businesses and organizations can be relevant parts of the description of an airport, whether looking at them from the ground or air, since the airport operator/owner usually doesn't perform all activities that occur there. These sites, when they say they're at the airport, can also contribute to the overall notability of the airport. Of course, WP:SPAM and WP:LINKS guidelines apply - so they have to be presented equally and in a neutral way. Before repairing the rest of the articles, I wanted to document guidelines on what is relevant at an airport, what isn't, and how to tell them apart. Comments? Suggestions? Ikluft (talk) 06:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If there no objections, I'll use this as the guideline behind restoration of aviation-related external links for on-field businesses and organizations that are part of the notability of these fields (airport information beyond government databases) but were removed from Watsonville Municipal Airport, Hollister Municipal Airport, Kingman Airport (Arizona) and Mountain Valley Airport on Aug 26. Ikluft (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I could still be convinced either way, but I'm leaning towards not including them on the basis of WP:NOTDIR. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Reid-Hillview Airport is a good example of what not to include in an airport article - most of the links in that article should really be deleted as they are not really relevant as per WP:NOTDIR, need to be carefull that the rationale is just a licence to WP:SPAM. MilborneOne (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Also suggest that Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content#External links is reverted until a consensus is established I appreciate being WP:BOLD but if Reid-Hillview Airport is a good example then it needs to be discussed. One day is not really long enough to allow various editors from different time zones to consider the proposal. MilborneOne (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm taken aback by these responses. WikiProject Airports is "dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of airports", yet the responses I'm seeing here seem like editors who volunteered to help with that purpose are actively working to dismantle WP's coverage of airports. How can you improve coverage of an airport by eliminating information about what's on the field? It's getting hit from two directions (though I realize no one editor has done both)... On one hand, there was resistance in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Notability when I suggested having a basic level of notability for public airports at a stable and easy-to-define level from which a stub article can be established. We did agree that previous AfD discussions and results supported the principle that government airport lists provide only verifiability but not notability. Some wanted an exception for airports with airline service, which alone is unbalanced favoritism toward one kind of aviation business, but were adamant against inclusion of public airports even though those had support in recent AfD history. Now it's coming from another direction - now systematically removing content of airport articles. There's the deletion of links to relevant on-field sites and the proposed AfD of all the US-airports templates. WP:NOTDIR was not intended to dismantle whole categories of info on WP just because some editors are uninterested. I'm surprised that editors in WikiProject Airports are not getting that - airports are handled differently in different countries.If WikiProject Airports is to have any purpose at all, it must set limits to protect data that supports notability, verifiability and/or reliable sources for airports. Either that or call the project a sham and shut it down for failure to perform its purpose. For those of you in Europe (including the UK), efforts to exclude the way the US does things is just as unacceptable as if we tried to make a global standard based on the US only. I know you'd object to that - how can I convince you not to try to do the same to us? If you're serious about improving WP coverage of airports, then it needs to be inclusive of different ways that different countries use them! Ikluft (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no comment about notability but looking at the airport articles without previous involvement they appear to be just a link farm, loads of external links to almost everything that somebody can think of about the airport. External links in the body of the article (against WP:EL) mainly for non-notable, example a lists of taxi operators, lists of FBOs, even lists of charities and local orgainisations!. A link to current weather can not be deemed encyclopedic but I will not go over the arguments from the AfD. I suspect the some users have mixed up an encyclopedia with a flight planning/travel guide. But to move on I think we need a sensible discussion on the external link guidelines which should then sort out what should and should not be in the article.MilborneOne (talk) 07:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added some suggested words at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/page content for consideration and discussion. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Now we're making some progress. MilborneOne's suggested words have been merged into the guideline. Ikluft (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

US-airports

Please note the group of templates that add external links to articles about airports in the United States has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:US-airport. Comment welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Airport template contents

In looking at the external material in these templates, I'm thinking that SkyVector should be dropped. This is not something that the average reader would be helped by. This is pure pilot information and they already know where to find it. Any consensus behind a suggestion like this? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

As a result of the US-airports TfD discussion, I suggested looking for a model for a possible solution at the tools that handle various web mapping sites based on a lat/lon coordinate. But instead the tool would be keyed off the airport code. The solution with the mapping links seems to have solved a very similar problem by inclusion, rather than arguing about what to exclude. But it also doesn't litter the page with links. Seems a good compromise. Ikluft (talk) 05:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

ICN destinations

Came across Incheon International Airport and discovered that the destination list is in another article, Airlines and destinations at Incheon International Airport. Shouldn't the destinations be in the airport article itself? pikdig (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing that I recall says they have to be in the article. Having said that, the article layout does not seem to follow the projects layout guide. Those separate destination articles probably would not pass at AfD. The content is full of issues, starting with the flags and making this into a travel guide. Even the templates used in there are useless since you can't read the top bar! Don't even know where to begin on a cleanup approach. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Service end date and removal of destination from listing

I just reverted a large number of premature removals of destination listings. Today, Labor Day, Monday, September 1, 2008, is the last day of operation of many routes in the United States. The cutbacks begin tomorrow, Tuesday, September 2. It's now 3 am PDT and 6 am EDT, and the last day of flights has barely begun. Until the last flight to a certain destination departs, there is still that service and it shouldn't be removed. Conversely, removing a listing one or two days late is not wrong, as it plainly states "ends September 1". HkCaGu (talk) 10:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you're getting a bit nit picky here. IMO, as long as it's at least the correct day GMT, I'd let it slide since we're only dealing with a difference of a few hours and in the end it won't be there anyway. I agree there's no problem with removing a day or two late since the end date is specified. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

An additional issue that comes up is what exactly is meant by "ends September 2". Does this mean that the last flights are on the 2nd or the 1st? ExpressJet Airlines is a perfect example; their branded service had been listed as ending September 2 based on previously released information, however the last flights were actually on the 1st: [1]. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, based on the information provided by sources like airline press releases, printed or web schedules, OAG and GDS listings, etc., "ends Sept. 1" means that Sept. 1 is the last day of service, and that's what we should use in Wikipedia. That said, I strongly agree with Hawaiian717 that a difference of a few hours or days is not really significant. The route listings are meant to be generally indicative of airline service, and Wikipedia is emphatically not a provider of precise schedule information. (See WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTTRAVEL.) --MCB (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Linking of dates

Remember those old discussions? Well the MoS has apparently been changed. See this which I believe basically says don't link dates. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)