Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Infobox field: Parent

There has been some discussion on the Virgin Atlantic article about how the parent company field should be used. By the strict letter of the law it appears it should only be used for majority shareholders and not by minority, even if large, shareholders. Would adding a field named 'Ownership' as used in the Companies infobox, e.g. Virgin Australia Holdings be a workable alternative? Goldgold12 (talk) 01:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

There can be only one parent company.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Shareholders are not the same as parent company and as far as airlines are concerned all we need to know is the parent, if the shareholding is notable then that can be mentioned in the article, but it is rarely of note. MilborneOne (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
On the Edelweiss Air page, there are two parent comparent companies listed (Lufthansa Group and Swiss). What is the actual parent of that company? 97.85.113.113 (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The company website says "Edelweiss Air has belonged to the Lufthansa Group since 1 November 2008" it also says elsewhere that they are only an affiliate of Swiss. MilborneOne (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The issue is that as it stands, to somebody skimming the infobox, they would assume it is a 100% Virgin Group entity. In the same way if it wasn't spelt out it easily be assumed Virgin Australia Holdings or Virgin Trains East Coast are controlled by VG when it only has a small shareholding in each. Goldgold12 (talk) 03:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Anybody that hold more than 50% of a company is the controlling parent and in the case of the airline the Virgin Group is that parent through a chain of companies. Others may own shares in these companies but none have a controlling interest. The fact that somebody else holds shares without a controlling interest somewhere up the chain of holding companies is rarely notable in airline articles. MilborneOne (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Great Lakes Airlines hub airports

According to their article, LAX, MSP, and PHX are no longer listed as hubs (DEN is the only hub). But http://greatlakesav.com/route_map/Docs/route_map.pdf still says that the airline still has all 4 hubs. Need help! 97.85.113.113 (talk) 03:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Meraj Airlines

Had a tidy up of Meraj Airlines as it was promotional and a lot of woffle, reverted by what appears to be a WP:SPA so if others can keep an eye on it please it would be appreciated, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 08:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The SPA has reverted to the promotional version, anybody around can have a look please, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 09:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Looks like this article needs full protection. Also, future routes are listed with no exact date and also flags are listed in the destinations table. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Trickery by Delta at LAX

Delta seems to be using smoke and mirrors to "de-hub" LAX to give the appearance of capacity discipline. Perhaps they want the public to perceive that SeaTac is the one and only Pacific Coast hub? Delta is upgauging at LAX, not cutting back; this includes conversion of half of Delta Shuttle's equipment to 717s and several regional routes being replaced with mainline service. Their cancellation of LAX-LHR service isn't a true cut because their joint-venture partner (VS) picked up the slack with additional capacity and Delta sells seats as if it were their own. This is another example of the silly smoke and mirrors.

As an encyclopedia, Delta should be kept honest, when conflicting info is presented:

This next link is informational only, since it shows the number of flights at certain hubs (back then, Delta was more forthcoming with hub passenger numbers and aircraft movements):

Delta's press releases are tweaked to appeal to particular narrow audience (er, let's say perhaps those that tune into that Peacock-logo station that doesn't start with "MS"). I think Delta's information for the general public, such as their route map (above) or Sky Magazine are accurate; even Ben Mutzabaugh's analysis of a given market might be more spot on than Delta's nuanced press releases.

--DLDL flyer (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't see the point of the above comment.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
We should override their press release and instead use their route map and Sky Magazine, which contains more accurate information. The latter sources are for consumption by the general public. --DLDL flyer (talk) 14:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Press releases are typically considered one of the most reliable sources.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Article nominated for deletion

Please note that I've AFDed List of Sriwijaya Air Group aircraft. You may share your thoughts here. Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I recently removed a large gallery of images in American Airlines fleet as normal practice is to provide a link to commons for images. User:TheJack15 has questioned the removal as he understood that a decision had been made previously to include such galleries. Although I believe that we should follow the Wikipedia:Image use policy which discourages galleries. Any thoughts? MilborneOne (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

While I also actively trim images from articles, it doesn't seem entirely off base to have more than one image in a fleet article. In this case, I'd definitely get rid of the unneeded dupes (here there are four A319/A320/A321 images, two A330s and three 777s) and bad photos. Maybe keep one of each of the most representative types (in the case of American, 737, A320, and (still!) the MD-8X). This discussion might be more appropriate at WikiProject Airlines. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 09:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I am not saying we dont need any images just not in a gallery format per the image use policy, a bit like Malaysia Airlines fleet is probably OK. MilborneOne (talk) 11:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Agree in not including aircraft images in fleet tables. We have Commons for that.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Virgin Red

I just proposed for deletion new article on Virgin Atlantic Little Red which is a brand and not an airline, it has been challenged with the other stuff argument pointing to Aer Lingus Regional as another brand with an article. On first sight the Aer Lingus Regional one should really be redirected to Stobart Air as it just duplicated most of that article. The Virgin Red stuff is already covered in Aer Lingus and Virgin Atlantic so I dont think an article is needed, any thoughts? Also I dont thiink they should use the airline infobox as it is probably misleading. MilborneOne (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

If you think the infobox is misleading then I'll be happy to remove it. As for Little Red, it has received sufficient 3rd party coverage to fulfil WP:GNG and also being a brand that operated from Heathrow as competition for BA, should cover the requirements in WP:ORGSIG as well. Just because it is a brand doesn't mean it can't have it's own page. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
It is clearly notable enough to be included in the Virgin Atlantic and Aer Lingus pages but I proposed deletion because it was just a brand for ticket sales, the leased aircraft were in standard Virgin Atlantic colour scheme so the branding didnt spread to the actual aircraft unlike Aer Lingus Regional. I will probably take it too AfD as I still dont think that it needs a stand-alone article but I am just waiting for other opinions on it. MilborneOne (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually they did plan to spread to the planes as this source attests. I have to reiterate that just because it is a brand, does not mean it isn't automatically non-notable. Yes it may not be under WP:INHERITORG but under WP:GNG it defiantly is as it has have the neutral 3rd party coverage from the BBC and several national newspapers to merit its own article. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I dont think anybody would say it was not notable thats why it is mentioned at Aer Lingus and Virgin Atlantic, being notable doesnt give something a free ticket to a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
A vague reference to how the slots were acquired, the trouble with loads and stopping the service is hardly covering the same level of detail that the individual Little Red page does. It would either make the Atlantic and AL pages unwieldy if it was all put in the other articles or only have limited information about it if the reference in the Atlantic or AL pages are all that is taken to cover Little Red. I think it is much better to leave the Little Red page independent so that the optimum amount of detail of it can be maintained and expanded upon. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I am happy to wait and see how the article develops and perhaps consider a tidy up the comments that it was an airline as it clearly was not and for example it says the A320s were returned to Aer Lingus which would have been hard as they were operating by them all the time. MilborneOne (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Vanilla Alliance

New unreviewed article. Can this alliance be compared to Oneworld, SkyTeam and Star Alliance?--Jetstreamer Talk 21:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Not really it just appears to be a cooperation agreement at the moment, it may develop into a proper alliance but doesnt look more than a marketing thing at the moment. MilborneOne (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Name and format help - Loganair Westray to Papa Westray route

I just created Loganair Westray to Papa Westray route, an article about the world's shortest scheduled commercial flight, but there is very little guidance on how to make an article about a flight as opposed to an airline or an aircraft. The few articles about notable scheduled flights (usually about the world's longest flights at one time or another) don't seem to have any uniformity. I used the airline infobox (sparsely) and did my best for the formatting. I have particular difficulty with the title, which currently implies one-way service, but everything else I try just gets more convoluted. These flights go by 12-13 different flight numbers. Any suggestions? Dcs002 (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting; I hope you nominate this for DYK! Regarding the titling, my suggestion would be to drop Loganair from the title. My reasoning is that this is the shortest flight regardless of who operates it, and this source indicates that it is a contract route that could be awarded to others in the future (even though it may be unlikely). I also think that the use of the airline infobox doesn't contribute much to the article, but I'll continue that point on the article's talk page. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. Removing the airline from the name would leave "Westray to Papa Westray route", which would need something to say it's a flight, or air route, as opposed to the much slower ferry route. "Westray to Papa Westray flights" has a little more zing than "Westray to Papa Westray air route" IMO, but both still suggest one-way travel. Maybe "Westray to Papa Westray and return flights"? Still clunky I think. You're right though about the contract nature of the route. Only Loganair has ever flown the route, but it's offered up for bidding every 3 years, so it lacks permanence. I got rid of the infobox though. That was just a bad idea from the start. Dcs002 (talk) 04:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Iran Air

We have a lot of passionate editors who keep adding the intended order for Airbus aircraft to the Iran Air fleet table, they dont appear to understand it is an agreement to discuss an order and the actually orders have not been placed and are not expected for a few months. Appreciate if others could keep an eye on the article please, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Full protection is the better choice here. I'm filling a request at WP:RPP.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
It is still a bit like pushing water uphill. MilborneOne (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
My request at WP:RPP was declined.--Jetstreamer Talk 18:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for trying unfortunately I am WP:INVOLVED so cant do much myself. MilborneOne (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Turkish Airlines destinations

Can someone please take a look at the article? Ottomanor (talk · contribs) has been adding two future destinations with no exact dates as required per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It appears that it has been removed by another user. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

D3-159 at Turkish Airlines article

There's an ongoing disagreement over mentioning Daallo Airlines Flight 159 at Turkish Airlines. Everyone is welcome to comment on this at Talk:Turkish Airlines. Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114

The article is in the Main Page today, in the "On this day" section. The coordinates appearing in the upper right corner of the article are seemingly having no sources at all. Does anyone have an idea where these coordinates came from? If unsourced, they should be wiped out.--Jetstreamer Talk 02:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of entries from Template:List of airlines

See Template talk:List of airlines. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 02:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Why does Air Serbia have a separate article?

Its simply Jat Airways rebranded not a new airline, if historic JAT-Yugoslav article could be retitled Jat Airways then the latter article should be renamed Air Serbia, can they be merged? that said even Aeroput and Jat Airways article needent have been seperate, since Aeroput was the same airline just the name was changed to JAT-Yugoslav when it resumed operations, should post USSR Aeroflot also have a seperate article?139.190.165.199 (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

No reason why a re-branded airline cant have a spearate article we do it all the time and those involved decided it was the right thing to do, have a read of the talk page for discussions on merging the two articles that have been held over time where it was decided that two articles are ok. MilborneOne (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Well its a very stupid policy, if you go to see Jat Airways has really nothing to do with JAT-YUGOSLAV AIRLINES, it was the airline of Serbia only, JAT-YUGOSLAV represented the last few states left in Yugoslavia and later Serbia & Montenegro thats over 50 years of history, when Serbia became a single totally independant country history changed, so its airline should have had a separate article from JAT-YUGOSLAV AIRLINES to begin with, which would now have been retitled Air SAerbia, instead the stupid policy has replaced the title of a historic airline that represented several countries since decades to one that only represented a single country and that too for just ten years, it would have made better sense if all of JAT-YUGOSLAV information had been merged with Aeroput and that article retitled JAT-YUGOSLAV AIRLINES. The Jat Airways article would have been like the current Air Serbia article with basic information and correctly retitled Air Serbia when the rebrand came about. 139.190.165.199 (talk) 10:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Nothing to do with policies stupid or otherwise it is all about consensus, and the current position has been arrived at through consensus, that is talk page discussion and agreement. Perhaps it would be better to split JAT Jugoslovenski Aerotransport from the Jat Airways article, but note that the airline did not change name when Yugoslavia became Serbia so that is not really relevant to the timeline. Then you could have Aeroput > JAT Jugoslovenski Aerotransport > Jat Airways > Air Serbia, but whatever any changes need to be discussed on the relevant talk pages. MilborneOne (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Why would an english language website carry an article titled JAT-Jugoslovesnki Aerotransport, when it had an english name as well, different for those that dont have an english name at all.50.117.45.127 (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

GAR at Star Alliance

Hello all. I'm trying to get things done for Star Alliance because of the current GAR. How can you find sources for an airline's hubs? I need them to cite in a table here. Cheers! MrWooHoo (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Future aircraft acquisitions

I have started a discussion on how these should be treated here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Southwest Airlines

Southwest Airlines appears to be overdoing the Special liveries and decals section which overwhelms the article and is a bit of an image fest and trivia more suitable for an airline fan website, any comments on this on article talk page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge Proposal of JetKonnect into Jet Airways

There is a merge proposal of JetKonnect into Jet Airways as JetKonnect is merely a brand of Jet Airways. You can comment on the merger here. — LeoFrank  Talk 16:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

No need to get rid of article as it mentions history of a defunct carrier, three infact. Also article has been vandalised Jelite India is the company/AOC holder operating as JetKonnect, Jetlite India the company remains officially on documents only the brand name/olourcsheme jelite has gone.139.190.165.199 (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

New project, any volunteers?

If you know about airlines or aviation, feel free to come to the talk page of American Airlines where I have begun a huge, multi-month project to get the article to great shape. It will probably take a huge amount of work that cannot be finished before 2017. Occasionally dropping by the talk pages from time to time to see discussion is all that I ask, though collaborative editing is also nice.

The current discussion is what should the article cover? I think it's the part of American Airlines Group that runs the airline.

Anyone interested? Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

IP troll

Hi, an IP editor is suspected of ongoing bad edits to airline articles. The discussion may be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#IP 86.187.x.x. Any confirmation or further information would be useful. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Shaheen Air and airblue vandal

Some guy is vandalising the airlines fleet and destinations parts according to his own preference, removing cited terminated routes adding planned unconfirmed routes as coming soon, making every domestic city a hub when they are not, changing class codes in feet table, passing false seating on A332 fleet when its not rquipped with business class, adding unecessary information in notes, please look into ot, thanks. 139.190.165.199 (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

He is doing it again, both under registered name and IP address.139.190.165.199 (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
The user in question keeps adding unsourced content despite having been warned of this. I think this is a matter for WP:ANI.--Jetstreamer Talk 01:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I have reported Nofil Jawed at ANI [1].--Jetstreamer Talk 03:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Hilarious this guy Noful is the culprit who is he refporting?, he recently removed refernce from Shaheen air destinations keep a check on this one he seems worthy of a ban. inspector (talk) 10:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Special liveries / individual registrations

Across airline articles I'm noticing an inconsistency over what is considered notable and included with regard to individual aircraft registrations, in particular for aircraft in 'special' or promotional liveries. I believe the policies in place are also slightly contradictory, which doesn't help matters. In the first instance, for the airline fleet list/table WP:ALFC states:

A list of the aircraft flown by the airline and the number of each. Other material should be limited to seating, aircraft on order and route information. Lists or tables should not include individual aircraft tail numbers unless they have encyclopedic value. Other than the number of seats other information on the aircraft (for example engines fitted, Boeing customer codes or wingtip devices) should not be included.

I personally always considered that in itself as a good basis for removing information about promotional / alliance liveries, especially where individual registrations were quoted, as non-encycloeapdic, and a bit 'fanboy' / 'spotter's guide' (what wikipedia is not). However I was recently directed to another policy relating to airline fleet lists at WP:AVIATION which states:

Airline fleet lists should not include registrations, although aircraft in special paint schemes can be identified either in a Livery section or in the general text.

To me this seems to go against the first policy ('other' information on the aircraft should not be included), and against WP:NOT (not a spotter's guide), whether or not the information is contained in a separate section (like at Delta fleet), or in the fleet table itself (I believe the policy suggests the former). Another concern is reliably sourcing information on special liveries, as sites like airliners.net / planespotters.net are not regarded as reliable sources, and most airline fleet lists are ideally sourced from national registry databases or the airline website, which usually do not provide livery information.

As an example, take the current fleet table for Garuda Indonesia. The entry line for the Boeing 737-800 aircraft currently shows:

Aircraft In Service Orders Passengers Notes
F C Y Total
Boeing 737-800 78 — — 12 148 160 8 aircraft (PK-GEx series aircraft) do not have in-seat AVOD and use overhead TVs, to be returned by mid-2017 after lease period ends.

PK-GMH in SkyTeam livery, PK-GFM in 1949-1966 livery, PK-GFN in 1966-1985 livery, PK-GEQ in 1985-2009 livery. 36 aircraft features Boeing Sky Interior.

150 162

I think we can all agree the information about in-flight entertainment and cabin interiors is unnecessary (not a travel guide), but regarding the special livery information, which is a mix of SkyTeam alliance painted aircraft and special liveries, which of the following options would be preferred, or should the policies be leaning towards?

Option A (specific registrations and all special liveries included)

Boeing 737-800 78 — — 12 148 160 PK-GMH in SkyTeam livery, PK-GFM in 1949-1966 livery, PK-GFN in 1966-1985 livery, PK-GEQ in 1985-2009 livery.
150 162

Option B (no registrations but all special liveries included)

Boeing 737-800 78 — — 12 148 160 One in SkyTeam livery, one in 1949-1966 livery, one in 1966-1985 livery, one in 1985-2009 livery.
150 162

Option C (no registrations but all special liveries included, with the exception of alliance liveries which are relatively common and so not notable)

Boeing 737-800 78 — — 12 148 160 One in 1949-1966 livery, one in 1966-1985 livery, one in 1985-2009 livery.
150 162

Option D (no registration or special livery information included)

Boeing 737-800 78 — — 12 148 160
150 162

Whilst I'm keen from the outset to start a discussion, not a vote, I think it's useful to agree what sort of information we want to be featured and how it would appear, so the options above are provided purely for ease of reference (obviously other options could be considered). I personally believe both of the guidelines quoted above would ultimately need to be amended to make the policy unambiguous, assuming an agreement can be reached. Thanks and I look forward to your contributions. SempreVolando (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Option ″D″ to me per WP:NOT. Tail numbers or liveries are not encyclopedic. Is a photo of me encyclopedic only because I wore a tuxedo?--Jetstreamer Talk 12:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Registration isnt important but livery imformation should be mentioned, wikipedia airline articles are mostly visited by aviation enthusaists seeking such info and not the average layman who may not care, I know its not a guide etc. but fact is its 99% aviation enthusiasts who are visiting these articles, so it should be open to some special interest information, unlike generic articles on all kinds of other things in a typical encyclopedia. inspector (talk) 10:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Lounges?

I find it a bit strange that many airline articles have a section on lounges. This is an esoteric part of an airline. Airline marketing departments probably like it but Wikipedia should be very independent and not promote airline marketing.

I am inclined to think that lounges should not be a part of most airline articles unless there is a specific historical or unusual reason to include it. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern, but in my experience they can be a significant part of the airlines' offerings, and they tend to receive substantial coverage from travel-oriented media as well as the general media. So I would generally be inclined to maintain appropriate discussions of the lounges in airline articles. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I would have to agree that most of the stuff we have on lounges is not particularly notable and as we are not a travel guide I suspect we have far too much information on them. MilborneOne (talk) 08:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I tend to agree. It's one thing to mention that an airline has a premium lounge service, it's another for the description to be written like a long promotional brochure for that service. Those lounges, like other premium services, are geared toward attracting people who fly often on their business's dime, who are the sort of traveler that make the airline more money than standard fares, and for whom the competition, and therefore promotions, are the most fierce. We are not here to be part of the airlines' promotional machine. Descriptions should be brief and neutral, little more than a passing mention among other descriptions of services offered. They don't need entire sections, and section headers should not include the name of the service (just say "airport lounges"). oknazevad (talk) 12:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
For some reason there is an actual stand-alone article for the Air New Zealand Koru Lounge, but then again there are also stand-alone articles for the Qantas Frequent Flyer programme; and Qantas The Australian Way and Jetstar Magazine in-flight magazines. YSSYguy (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Table colours and lease info

I thought wikipedia had allowed fleet table header to be coloured in airline theme but as editor YSSY is removing them saying its wiki policy for no clour in that table, he is also removing lease information saying its common place and not worthy of adding, why? yes leasing is common place but that dosent mean the airline table only show aircraft that are its own, and remove uniqque types that are not part of their fleet but are operating on lease such as A330 for airblue, he is also very ill-informed example entire airlue fleet is leased yet he removed ones that were listed as in Windrose airlines livery in notes he thinks that the ones in airblue livery are owned, where do these people crawl out of and start editing all of a sudden in this manner making themseleves authority? inspector (talk) 10:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The table colors are not disallowed, but unnecessary, and if the color combination causes WP:ACCESS issues, then it should definitely go. So, replacing them with standard colors is fine.
Actually, we decided not too long ago (though I don't remember exactly where the discussion was) not to include leased aircraft because leases at too transitory and ever-shifting, what with wet leases and all. They change too frequently and are too hard to reliably source. And cranky, it remains true that Wikipedia is a general intrest encyclopedia, and is not solely for airline fanboys, railfans, or road geeks. It's not here to be a spotter's guide, nor full of obscure details that are really only important to people working at the airline. So, YSSY, who's been here for years, I might add, is acting correctly. oknazevad (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
MOS:TABLES is the Wikipedia-wide guideline on tables and WP:AVILIST is the guideline for lists of aircraft. In-page styling should not be used without a local consensus that it has some value to readers and is not just eye candy. Remarks like, "where do these people crawl out of..." are gross violations of WP:CIVIL and can quickly get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
@Inspector123: you are misrepresenting the situation. Inspector mentions Airblue, the edit he doesn't like is this one, in which it can be seen that I did not make any changes to the actual numbers of aircraft in the fleet. I really don't know why I bother with these poor-quality articles from the subcontinent, it isn't worth the hassle. As for the table colours, is this, this, this or this preferable to a neutral table header? YSSYguy (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
regarding lease bit, airblue entire fleet is leased LOL! why not just delete the whole section since its not inline with the obviously not well thought out concensus. inspector (talk)
Regarding the specific instance of AirBlue. In the destinations table, the blue is so dark I can barely see the sort "button"s in the table header. And I know they might be there. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
@Inspector123: you misunderstand. The issue is wet leasing. If airline B wet leases aircraft to airline A, they are not part of airline A's fleet, they are part of airline B's fleet. Long-tem leasing of aircraft from ILFC or AWAS to airline A and airline B, or from airline C to airline A and airline B, counts towards the fleets of A and B. There is just no need to make any reference to them being leased and not owned, because leasing is so commonplace in the airline industry that it is not notable; you might as well say that "Airblue leases offices from a real estate company". To give a local example, Qantas "owns" just over half of its fleet and leases the rest. I say "owns" because many of the aircraft are registered to subsidiary companies of Qantas that then "lease" these to Qantas, in order to minimise tax. For example, four of Qantas' A380s are registered to QF ECA 2008-2, while QF ECA A380 2010 NO.4 owns two A380s; Contrabass Leasing Company, Cello Leasing Company, Viola Leasing Company, Violin Leasing Company, Dingo Leasing Company, Emu Leasing Company, Wombat Leasing Company and ECAF I 33992 Designated Activity Company own one 737-800 each. Qantas itself is the registered owner of half of Jetstar's fleet, 75% of Eastern Australia Airlines' fleet, all but two of Network Aviation's fleet and all of Express Freighters Australia's fleet. Eastern Australia Airlines operates 19 aircraft but only owns two of them. YSSYguy (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Back to table colours, MOS:TABLES and WP:AVILIST both say to avoid in-table styling. However the example table in the style guide at WP:ALFC does use coloured styling. Should that style guide be corrected to conform to the wider style guides by removing the styling markup? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Table row for Total

Is there a consensus to include a Total row at the end of aircraft inventory tables, as for example here? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Total should exist as it gives the total number of aircraft with the airline which otherwise becomes difficult to comprehend. Tables with numbers have total as the last row (e.g. population) if it is cumulative and makes sense. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding blunt, how does it aid understanding of the subject to remove the total? What is to be gained by doing so? YSSYguy (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
The project style guide for the fleet section of airline articles does include a total row when the fleet is listed in a table. For the Jet Airways example you gave I would certainly support a total row, as the fleet is varied across several types, and the total gives a good picture of the overall fleet size and number of orders without the reader having to calculate it themselves. It also correlates nicely with the total fleet size in the article infobox. For other fleet tables - like Tigerair Australia, yes I would agree it may seem a little pointless, but as YSSYguy said - what's the harm? SempreVolando (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you all. My apologies for stirring things up without checking first. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Please note that {{infobox airline}} has a field for the fleet size, i.e. total number of aircraft.--Jetstreamer Talk 18:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Cathay Dragon is flying

the first Dragonair A330 in new name and livery is now operational, article title and some content needs to be updated. inspector (talk) 10:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The the airline's website still says "Dragonair". 97.85.118.142 (talk) 04:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Role-based lists of aircraft

Number of aircraft

There is a new discussion on whether to include the number of aircraft in role-based lists of aircraft here. This may affect some airline-related lists such as classes of airliner. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

No citation required for current routes??

Was surprised one editor left summary in Tehran Imam Khomeini airport edit removing a ciation I had added saying that citations are only needed for future and ending routes, so how are current routes verified? am I supposed to go to airline website schedule to look at it, I can as a n aviation enthusiast but what about about a general person? will this nor lead to false information being added, and isnt every entry required to have an inline ciation or reference anyways? 42.201.250.106 (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Something for Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports rather than here but the current project thinking is "For current destinations, the implicit reference is the airline's published timetable. If the flight is in the timetable and not challenged, an explicit reference is not normally included.", but that is not really an excuse for not providing proper references for routes if they exist. The main problem is that most route information doesnt have a reliable sources other than the timetable or airline/airport press releases. If you provided a reliable reference it should not have been removed. MilborneOne (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC on production numbers in lists

Thgere is an RfC discussion on numbers of aircraft built in lists. You are invited to join in. Please do, as it may affect the lists of aircraft types in airline articles. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

American Airlines destinations article messed up

Someone has set it to their preference. 119.73.100.198 (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

What seems to be the issue?--Jetstreamer Talk 20:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
It seems that someone added the destinations in a column format in addition to the table format. It pretty much a repeat of what cities American serves. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 03:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

ILFC

This company has been taken over by AerCap and the website confirms the fact, article title needs to be changed.42.201.154.185 (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Airport naming issue on destinations

I have noticed a couple of airline destinations tables or lists have some airports that do not have the word "international" in the name includes "international" (i.e. Auckland International Airport, Sydney-Kingsford Smith International Airport, London Heathrow International Airport, etc) especially European airports. However, it is dabbed to the correct name. Is this ok or should we stick to the official name of the airport? 97.85.118.142 (talk) 04:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Request assistance on new article city pair

Hi Wikians,

I wrote a new stub article on airline city pairs. Would appreciate your assistance in improving the airticle. Thanks.

--Airplane mode (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Kuwait Airways

Hello there everyone! Can someone please take a look at the article? An editor is persistently altering the fleet table with unsourced figures. Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 15:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I've used Airfleets.net to amend the fleet table. However, it is not in full agreement with the fleet table so this is somewhat embarassing. Thoughts?--Jetstreamer Talk 15:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Fleet galleries

A user has been adding "fleet galleries" to some airline articles, I have reverted some that I have found for example British Airways, consensus is that we do not use galleries as a link exists to images on commons, this doesnt mean we cant have images to illustrate the fleet section but not as a large block or gallery. Some others needs to be reverted back as we are now getting other users saying well these exist so we can do it on this article, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, per WP:NOTGALLERY.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Reliability of PlaneSpotters

As User_talk:Jetstreamer told me, it's not a reliable source, however, in article Lufthansa, someone had used it as source for Lufthansa's fleet. Can anyone give me some idea on this and which source will be considered reliable source for airline fleet?0x44616E68 (talk) 05:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

ch-aviation seems to be used more frequently, but when I have compared it to official aircraft registers I have found it to be wrong. When I have double-checked planespotters it has been accurate. Others will no doubt say that neither is acceptable. YSSYguy (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
The annual reviews in the like of Flight, national aircraft registers and airline websites would be better to use, the airline fan sites are can be reasonable acurate but can sometimes be updated from reports from spotters at different airports which may not always be correct. Unfortunately in some countries the only source can be these fan sites but they should be used with caution if at all. (we did have edits changing all of planespotters for ch-aviation only to be followed a few years later by somebody changing them all back! a sort of spotter site war) MilborneOne (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Could anybody recommend some good and reliable source (better than planespotters), which could be used instead? --Dvorapa (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC) PS: There was another discussion about this topic under Village pump. --Dvorapa (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Already mentioned them in the last entry before yours. MilborneOne (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Putting aside the question of accuracy, ch-aviation's info is behind a paywall now. YSSYguy (talk) 07:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. The best source for fleets are the airlines' official websites whether they are up to date or not. The problem is that not all of them are available. For instance, TAAG Angola Airlines' official website shows the types of aircraft in the fleet but it doesn't mention the nummber of them.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I think we need to make some sort of decision about this. Jetstreamer is undoing edits that are based on planespotters and is leaving ch-aviation stand as a ref; I tend to remove ch-aviation in favour of planespotters. We both know that neither is necessarily the best source and ch-aviation is now not viewable at all unless one hands over some readies - which I will not do, because I think it is not as good as planespotters anyway. So, given the fact that the vast majority of airline articles use one or both, do we just turn a blind eye when there is no alternative such as a country's civil aircraft register or the airline's own website, or do we start removing fleet numbers from airline fleet tables if they are based on ch-aviation, airfleets or planespotters etc.; do we hard-line-accept the once-a-year Flight airliner census and endlessly undo everyone that "updates" the numbers? YSSYguy (talk) 10:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
They are clearly not reliable sources but in some parts of the world we dont have anything else, perhaps if used they should be tagged as unofficial (pending something better coming along) as in some instances they are made to look official. MilborneOne (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm only reverting the fresh addition of Planespotters as a source. If at any page it was already used I do not remove it, and in some cases marked it with a {{RS}} template. As YSSYguy points out, Ch-aviation no longer can be used as it is behind a paywall.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I have begun using the {{Better source|reason=|date=}} template, with a note "Information from this website can only accessed by making a payment" for Ch-aviation, or "Planespotters.net is not considered a reliable source. Its information may be generated by user contributions and may be incomplete or outdated". YSSYguy (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm just going to mention that requiring a subscription does not make a source unreliable. Indeed, many scientific journals, the highest quality of all sources, are behind paywalls. So I don't think that's a good reason to tag something. oknazevad (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say it is unreliable, I said there might be a better source, one that is freely available. I have two concerns; the first is that, when Ch-aviation was a free site and I compared it to official civil aircraft registers, it was often wrong and there is now no way to know without forking out money. The second is that, of the IPs and registered Users who change the fleet table numbers and never bother to update the access date of the source (the ones who change an article to say "as of July 2016 the Foo Airlines fleet..." and make wholesale changes to the numbers, and the ref date is 2014 or whenever), are not all forking out money to Ch-aviation either. YSSYguy (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Non-notable accidents/incidents at Ukraine International Airlines

I have challenged the addition of some minor non-notable accidents on the Ukraine International Airlines page but have been reverted, I have started a talk page discussion and comments are welcome, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

former fleet info being removed

Is it wrong to list referenced former fleet in fleet section? someone is removing it from Airblue article. 139.190.175.128 (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

No this is an encyclopedia and former aircraft types operated is fine as long as it is referenced. MilborneOne (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Unnotable incident being reinstated at Air Algérie

Can someone please take a look at the article? A new editor is re-adding a totally unnotable incident. Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 15:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I looked and saw a red linked talk page for the new user. So I gave them a welcome message and explanation of why the incident shouldn't be included. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Gatwick airport in destination lists

An editor has changed it to London Gatwick International Airport in every airline destination table even thought article title remains Gatwick Airport.139.190.175.128 (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Clearly wrong it is known as "Gatwick Airport" it dropped "London" from the common name a few years ago it has never used "International". MilborneOne (talk) 15:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Air India terminated routes removed

Someone has removed referenced former routes of the airline from destinations table, I'm not restoring it as I dont want to go on updating whatever changes have been made to list since then.139.190.175.128 (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Cathay Pacific fleet

Hellot everyone! The article is virtually unreferenced and full of unnecessary information (tail numbers, individual seat configurations, etc.), more in resemblance with a travel guide than with an encyclopedic article and it is in bad need of cleanup. I've tagged the article with {{cleanup}}. I'd do it myself but I don't have the time to take care of it. Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I've removed entired sections with totally unnotable material. The current fleet information is still unsourced.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Pakistan International Airlines codeshare

Editor is trying to pass off Air France partnership as code share in that section, keep a check on that, he seems to be intersted in catering to teh dumber Pakistani viewers with false information to keep it simple as he says in his summary. inspector (talk) 13:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

El Al destinations

Hi there everyone. Can someone please take a look at the article? An edior keeps adding flags and unsourced entries (most of them seasonal services unsupported by the companion references) to the article. Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Left him a level 1 warning at his talk page but seems to have stopped now. TravelLover37 (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I also started a discussion at the article's talk.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

How to handle indefinite suspention of airline: Arik Air

Arik Air suspended operations indefinitely due to a petrol and insurance crisis. However, it is not known whether they are calling it quits for good. How to handle this from an article and template perspective? Should we list "ceased operations" in the infobox as of 13 September 2016? Thanks. --Aviation black ops (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Operations have resumed. Nothing should ever be touched in events like this. HkCaGu (talk) 07:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Saudia fleet vandalism

Various aircraft have been removed from their Royal Flight division and its been renamed Government Fleet, also 747s added to passenger section which the airline dosent operate anymore since April, could be hajj leases though. inspector (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Plesse check this vandal, the 747-300 just recently visited Pakistan yet he keeps removing it.inspector (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Monarch Airlines rumours

There appears to be a rumour going round the internet that British airline Monarch Airlines is in some sort of financial problems, and some IP editors keep changing the article to state that it has or is about to cease operations. More eyes are needed on the article.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Scoot destinations

Vandal adding IATA/ICAO codes after removal, says its allowed till concensus. Mustangmanxxx (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Codeshare agreements

I've started to update codeshare agreements with CAPA as the source. CAPA has a profile page for each airline that is not behind a paywall. These profile pages list the codeshare partners. LATAM airlines are still listed as LAN and TAM, so they have to be changed over to the current names. Are there any concerns about this method? NYCRuss ☎ 17:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Traditionally, we used the official airline website to list codeshares. But I do not see any particular issue with using an alternative website.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
I was doing that, but there were some issues. If you check the websites for both airlines in a codeshare, they don't always match. Quite simply, not all airlines are diligent about keeping their codeshare partners up to date. So I looked at CAPA, which is an independent and credible source. It turns out that CAPA is rather accurate. It seems to me that CAPA is a better alternative. Of course, I could be wrong, and I'm open to a better way. NYCRuss ☎ 17:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
An independent, reliable third-party source? Now why would we even want to use those on Wikipedia? ;-) seriously, though, that seems like a perfect choice. As you say, airline websites aren't always up to date on those sorts of pages. They exist principally to advertise the airline and sell tickets. "About us"-type pages are lower priority. CAPA is a more consistent alternative. oknazevad (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Agreed! If anyone wants to review my edits for codesharing, and I've done a lot, I welcome the feedback. NYCRuss ☎ 18:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Avianca El Salvador or TACA Airlines?

It seems to me that Avianca El Salvador should be the article (right now it's a redirect) and that TACA Airlines should be the redirect. What say you? NYCRuss ☎ 18:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Transavia, Transavia France, HOP!, and KLM CityHopper Parent Company

Shouldn't the parent company of those subsidiaries actually be Air France-KLM instead of Air France and KLM individually? Look at the subsidiaries of the Lufthansa group, the parent company for those carriers are actually listed as Lufthansa Group and not the airline. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 04:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism at airblue

Abdulrafey is repeatedly removing terminated routes from destinations section even though they are all referenced and within rules/policy, he is also removing ATR72 from former fleet.139.190.175.128 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

He is at it again removing referenced terminated routes, saying they are not part of destinations served which is being unecessarily pednatic. 139.190.175.128 (talk) 09:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
First of all, it is not vandalism. I've reinstated all the entries that were deleted. Please note that I removed Istanbul as there were no confirmation that flights to this city started; the reference supporting the entry was just an announcement for a future route.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

IATA/ICAO/callsign

Should we include references for the IATA/ICAO/callsigns of airlines? They are often difficult to find; how can the average reader know where to find them. For example, I have no idea where the ICAO code and callsign for LaMia came from, but the norm is not to provide a reference so... — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 16:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Normally not referenced because they are readily available in both official publications and fan web sites, unless anybody challenges them they dont have to be referenced. Have a look at Airline codes for an explanation of sources although if you are interested the FAA website lists the current ones at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/1021047 MilborneOne (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Greetings WikiProject Airlines/Archive 8 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Mass moves

Hmains (talk · contribs) moved a large number of articles including lists to "List of..." without prior discussion. They did the same across a number of projects, e.g. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Mass_moves_of_Chief_of_Defense_Staff_articles. I think we should move the articles back to their original name. Thoughts?--Jetstreamer Talk 22:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Passenger and cargo fleets

Fleet tables are divided into passenger and cargo but some people are removing the cargo section and listing the fleet as one, they are not even making the effort to list the cargo aircraft alphabetically, notably an established editor YSSY at Iran Air, why is this happening? is it not allowed to list passenger and cargo fleets separatley/ it made sense.Mustangmanxxx (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

No reason to list the cargo aircraft seperately if they are part of the same fleet and in the case of Iran Air it is only one aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Aircraft were listed in a single table only the cargo section had its own header, what was the problem with that? it made sense and looked better, many such still around Saudia, Qatar, Etihad, Air France, KLM, many Asian and Chinese carriers, I see they are gradually being replaced with the revised version, its almost like editors get bored and decide to change things that are working and make sense. Ot looks as if they couldnt remove colours from the cargo header so decided to do away with the whole thing,.well atleast let them be listed alphabetically, why should an Airbus be under McDonnell Douglas, my edit there for the same was reverted by another. Mustangmanxxx (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Edited above post to add more commentry. Mustangmanxxx (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

EgyptAir

Hello everyone. Can someone please take a look at the article? A WP:COI-user is making silly edits to the article by claiming they work for the company.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Wet-leased aircraft in fleet lists

Hello everyone! A question about fleet lists and wet-leased aircraft. WP:AIRLINE-FLEET-LIST seems a bit contradictory - on the one hand fleet lists should list all aircraft flown by an airline, on the other hand wet-leased aircraft should not be listed. Airlines sometimes lists aircraft as belonging to their fleet, when they are actually wet-leased, which leads to confusion.

How should this be handled? I can think of at least three solutions:

  1. Include the wet-leased aircraft in the fleet list (breaking WP:AIRLINE-FLEET-LIST)
  2. Include the wet-leased aircraft in the fleet list, but include a statement somewhere that "so-and-so many are wet-leased" (either in the list itself or in an extra paragraph with basic ownership information somewhere).
  3. Remove the wet-leased aircraft from the fleet list, and include only those operated under the airline's AOC. This will comply with WP:AIRLINE-FLEET-LIST. But it will lead to confusion later, when users who don't understand wet leases and AOCs look at airlines' websites etc. and think that the Wikipedia article is missing aircraft.

(The case in point was a discussion about Turkish Airlines. Their fleet includes about 330 aircraft, ~10% of which owned, ~65% dry-leased and ~25% wet-leased. The source for the fleet list in the article is their web site, which includes the wet-leased aircraft as if they were theirs. Clearer information is given only in other reports.) - Toothswung (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Clarification: in the particular case of THY, they list 86 aircraft as "Operating/Wet Lease", only a part of these are actually wet-leased; I read it as 27 under actual wet lease (24+3). Thanks MilborneOne for pointing this out - Toothswung (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I second Toothswung's comment. However, I'd tend to include the aircraft listed by the supporting source, typically the information provided by the airline itself. This, however, will not be in compliance with WP:AIRLINE-FLEET-LIST. Thoughts?--Jetstreamer Talk 16:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Still not convinced that the sources above show any significant amount of wet-leasing going on which appears to be related to the the cargo operation, if the aircraft are registered and painted in THY markings (in this example) they are probably not wet-leased as we understand it. The non-listing of wet-leased aircraft was to stop the listing of aircraft that are owned and operated by somebody else using THY callsigns, I dont see much of that going on at Turkish apart from the 747 freighters so I dont see an issue with the project guidance MilborneOne (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I still think the WL in the 737-800s stand for "wet lease", and the lease partner in question is probably SunExpress - which is Turkish' and Lufthansa's subsidiary and regularly wet-leases out 737-800s - but anyway I don't think it makes sense to get hoocked on this particular case now. Among low-costers it doesn't seem like a rare situation, and paint jobs don't mean much, wet leases in the lessee's livery happen all the time. Anyway the question was not about Turkish Airlines, but about how to deal with wet-leased aircraft in fleet descriptions. - Toothswung (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
WL I believe means it has winglets - I dont think we need to change what we do aircraft that are wet-leased should not be listed, they are not part of the "leased to" airlines fleet and remain legally part of the "leased from" airline. A wet-lease is really just borrowing somebody elses aircraft to operate your flight. So I see nothing wrong with what we do. MilborneOne (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Planespotters.net

Is www.planespotters.net a reliable source? I see it used as a reference for many fleet tables. Anyone can offer to correct the information, although there are some requirements. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 16:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It is not.--Jetstreamer Talk 16:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, and I also found that they use several "unofficial" sources. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 16:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Awards and Recognitions

Can Air Transport World (ATW) awards be added to an airline's page? ATW is well-recognised and known in the aviation industry. Some airlines, like IndiGo, have "Award and Recognition" sections. I have tried adding mentions of the recently announced ATW winners to certain pages, such as Air Serbia, but the addition has been reverted.---Jujr (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Terminated destinations

Another question...are all terminated destinations notable? For example, for an airline like Delta, there is a dizzying number of terminated destinations, and I wonder if we will ever be able to cover them all. Some terminated destinations don't seem notable at all, such as the fact that Delta flew to Terre Haute, Indiana, in the 1950s. I think that, if a terminated destination really is important, then it should be discussed in the History section. For example, the fact that Delta was once expanding in Africa but has since pulled back could be notable. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 17:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

IMO, terminated destinations are as valid as current ones.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
But why? Do you think that they are all notable? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 17:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Certainly. They are part of the airline's history.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Agreed Jetstreamer. Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

British Airways

Hi all.

On the subject of BA destinations, I've noticed a number of areas for potential improvement. As follows:

  • The BA Destinations page (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_destinations) includes several destinations which were only ever served by codeshare or franchise partners, not BA mainline. A few examples include a variety of Southern African secondary cities (served by BA franchise partner Comair), Scottish Highlands routes (some were BA, some were franchise partner Loganair), some old Norway routes, Waterford, Porto Santo, Azores and Kelowna, Canada. I think most of this information has been included because past World Airline Directory entries are taken as gospel sources, when in fact these entries included codeshares and franchise destinations.
  • To resolve this, I suggest a separate section could be created on the BA Destinations page for these destinations to be moved to, thus retaining the information but segmenting it from the main BA destination list.
  • I think there may also be actual directly served past BA destinations missing from the list. I have some info on this and am happy to research it further and get back to you all on here, with links, timetables etc.
  • BA CityFlyer is the same company as BA, in fact is a wholly owned subsidiary airline whose branding is identical. I'd suggest that standalone CityFlyer destinations be included on the main BA list, in addition to their current placing on the CityFlyer list, with perhaps an indicator colour or asterisk-type system to show this minor distinction. Currently there is some crossover, with some routes served both by mainline and CityFlyer, but also some routes served by one yet terminated by the other, or served by one yet never served by the other. Rotterdam springs to mind; this is actually included as current in the mainline list of destinations, yet is now only served by CityFlyer. The current setup is confusing to anyone looking for info on the airline, giving the impression that certain destinations aren't served and thus are not bookable on BA metal, when in fact they are.
  • Is it really necessary to include on a full line cities' old airports that have been replaced by a new airport, where that airport is still open? Examples: Seoul, Osaka, Bangkok etc. Again this is misleading and would be better served in a separate shortlist at the bottom and/or with an asterisk/footnote. It's not even consistent: Bangkok's entry only includes Suvarnabhumi Airport and not the old, but still operational, Don Mueang. Further, I've seen cases in other airlines' destination lists where closed airports are included, even where the new airport is currently served.
  • Lastly, reading these type of lists isn't so easy with the current colour coding system. It only highlights certain boxes, rather than the whole row, which is easier to read and would be much clearer.

Hope this is constructive. Your thoughts?

Best Ross-shire

Ross-shire (talk) 13:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the last point, you may want to read WP:AIRLINE-DEST-LIST where you can find the formats that were adopted by consensus.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Airline Quality Rating (AQR)

The addition of information from the Airline Quality Rating on a few American airlines has been challenged with a request that it should be discussed. User:Novel compound who made the additions mentions AQR is important to Wikipedia readers. and helps consumers make informed decisions which has been explained is not encyclopedic and perhaps it may be something for wikitravel.org Comments welcome MilborneOne (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The Airline Quality Rating is a faculty research project of two major universities which does a great deal to help consumers make informed decisions about air travel.
MilborneOne says that "helping consumers make informed decisions about air travel is not what wikipedia is for." I agree, of course. Wikipedia is a place to present encyclopædic (i.e., notable) information. And a fortunate side effect of presenting notable information often happens to be that it helps consumers make well-informed decisions.
Air travel is an enormous industry that is subject to much discussion about the quality of service. As such, when an airline receives a high or low AQR it is very notable.
When AQR information was added to the articles of airlines that received high or low rankings, MilborneOne complained that "adding it to multiple articles" is "spam-like" behavior. So I asked whether he thought it would be more fair to single out a single low-ranking airline, and add the information to that article only. So far, he has declined to answer that question. Novel compound (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
They are loads of these quality ratings provided by different organisations for a lot of subjects in wikipedia but none of which have any real encyclopedic value, and some have been found to be biased or localised and in some cases only paid for members are reviewed. But wikipedia is not a travel guide and is not the right place for such "ratings". MilborneOne (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Definitely not encyclopedic. Here we have yet another editor that thinks Wikipedia is a travel guide.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Nonsense. Competent, independent evaluations of the quality of a major corporation's products and services are subject to inclusion in an encyclopædia article about that corporation. If you feel otherwise, you should delete this section from Wikipedia: DirectBuy#Consumer Reports
Wikitravel.org is a place to discuss travel destinations. It has no articles about the airlines that received high or low AQR ratings. It doesn't even have an article named "Air travel."
If MilborneOne has solid evidence that AQR releases biased ratings, let's hear it. Wikipedia is not a place to publish, or base decisions on, "what-if" innuendo. Novel compound (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
This is neither the place to discuss the quality of airline services. Even Skytrax rankings do not qualify as encyclopedic, with very, very rare exceptions. Separately, as far as I can see, all of your related edits are promotional. See WP:SOAPBOX.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
My addition to the Spirit Airlines article said, "In the AQR announced April 4, 2016, Spirit ranked 13th out of 13 airlines." Does that sound "promotional"?
A mere assertion, that the quality of a corporation's products and services is not an admissible topic in an article about that corporation, is not convincing at all. If you took some action against DirectBuy#Consumer Reports, I would at least admire your consistency.
Apparently you believe this kind of detail, largely transcribed from an airline's route maps, is encyclopædic. I disagree, but I'm not about to throw a hissy fit and start nominating those articles for deletion. I respect the fact that those articles add value, even though they're not encyclopædic. Novel compound (talk) 05:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
You are welcome to raise the subject of airline routes here or take these articles to a deletion discussion but it has no relevance to ranking or quality opinions. MilborneOne (talk) 10:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
To add to what MilborneOne said, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Regarding the Delta Air Lines destinations article, you're more than welcome to start cleaning up the article or to propose changes in the corresponding talk page. You must understand that two users cannot keep an eye on the entire project.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

technical stops / triangular routes vs. cabotage, Fifth Freedom etc.

Apologies if this has been discussed earlier. I have looked about Wikiproject:airports as well as Wikiproject: airlines, and not turned anything up. I'm looking for a consensus on how to handle the notation and inclusion of technical stops in airline service lists on airport pages. Many airlines, particularly on intercontinental routes, operate triangular routes without Fifth Freedom rights. Examples abound (Air China to Budapest and Minsk, Air Mauritius to KL and Singapore, etc.) but flights into West Africa operated by Air France, Brussels Airlines, and Turkish tend to be particularly complex in this regard. I have long been keen to update pages with section footnotes notes explaining such operations, as well as including invisible text flags warning fellow editors not to add destination Q served by the relevant airline from airport X, when the airline has no rights to operate between X and Q. However, I have noticed that periodically these notes disappear. It would seem relevant that a given route was triangular instead of nonstop, as this tells the audience about the size and organization of the route from a business point of view. It also reveals aspects of the regulatory environment. Am I mistaken? Discussion welcome. Pufferfyshe (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Aircraft orders

Just looking for clarification on fleet lists - I understood the "order" column in the fleet table is for new aircraft ordered from the manufacturer and any other changes to the fleet like dry leases and second-hand purchases are listed in the notes. Does anybody else agree with this and if they do should it be added to the page layout guide? MilborneOne (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I certainly agree.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

LaMia

Is it safe to say that the airline is now defunct? Google says it "ceased operations" in December 2016 (after its license was suspended; its airplanes have since been repossessed and it looks like it's not going to come back, at least under its current incarnation), but the article is still written in the present tense. Should the article be updated to reflect its zombie status? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you have sources at hand to support the changes?--Jetstreamer Talk 01:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Request for comment on terminal information in airline and destination tables

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Request for comment on terminal information in airline and destination tables . -- Whats new?(talk) 03:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

AfD nomination - List of airlines of the Faroe Islands

I have nominated for deletion the article List of airlines of the Faroe Islands. The discussion can be found here.Olidog (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Ethiopian Airlines cargo routes

I updated the article adding destinations that were not included and attaching the Cargo ref from someone else who had put the ref link in there in 2014, since the editor jetstreamer maintains all these African carrier articles and watches over them I though he would be particular about keeping them uptodate himself and would have added the latest ref too, so I didnt bother checking that its its new or not, instead I see he has reverted my edit with summary note the ref name=Cargo bit that I have attached to each new destination does not show those places, when I check he is right, the link in there is from 2014, so this editor who watches his articles like a hawk did not update it and would not have done so if someone else hadnt bothered to.

I reverted the edit and posted the new link in summary to show him my edit was factually correct, and so that he may add it in the article, I did not because I could not locate the place where the ref was to be changed, so I expected him to do the job since he knows where that needs to be done, but instead he has once again reverted my edit with same summarry i.e ref name=Cargo does not support the info I added to the article.

Really? I gave you the link to add to the article you so hawkishly watch over and maintain, it was likely updated by you in 2014, all you had to do now was insert the link I provided on summary to the correct place that you know its at, I could not find it, this is the height of ridiculous, kindly dont maintain articles and watch over them like a hawk when you cant do something as simple as update them with a new link given to you on a platter.139.190.175.128 (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

You should have contacted me or anyone else at the corresponding talk pages instead of warring.--Jetstreamer Talk 15:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
For what? I think other editors of the project need to know whats happening, I gave you the new link in summary instead of saying thanks and adding it where relevent you reverted my edit with the same note that the ref tag does not include the routes listed,you more then likely were expecting me to add the link in the article 139.190.175.128 (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
See WP:BURDEN. I'm not gonna do your work for you.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Fleet table or not

I removed the fleet table at Air India Express as they only have one aircraft type but the change was reverted, our page layout guidelines allow for both text or table layout. Although it seems a bit daft but any thoughts about the use of tables when the airline has only one aircraft type, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Having a table for a fleet composed by a single type of aircraft is too much.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

List of defunct airlines of Faroe Islands nominated for deletion

Hello everyone. I've nominated the article for deletion on the basis that it has a single entry. The discussion can be found here.--Jetstreamer Talk 18:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:United Airlines#Multiple issues

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:United Airlines#Multiple issues. epicgenius (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC) There is a dispute about whether historical logos should be used in the article's "history" section. Some editors say it is advertising, while others disagree. Any comments are appreciated. Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Also lots of disruption going on in the article included the removal of unreferenced material rather than fact tagging. MilborneOne (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
The first post was a nice neutral one by Epicgenius. The 2nd post unfortunately has the impact of poisoning the well. And frames a particular dispute rather than using neutral language. Best to follow the civil and professional model by Epicgenius. Thank you to Epicgenius. Sagecandor (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you to Milb. We need to know who's being disruptive. Their post here has illustrated that. - BilCat (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Mega Maldives

Is this airline defunct or it just temporarily suspended operations and will resume operations soon? Sources say that the airline has only "temporarily suspended operations" but doesn't state it is defunct. Airline website is still active with the booking engine (probably will be disabled in a couple of days). The airline article states that the airline is defunct. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion

There is a proposal to move Pilot (aeronautics) to Aviator at Talk:Pilot (aeronautics)#Requested move 8 May 2017. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/Archive 8/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Airlines.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Airlines, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

How to list termintaed destiantions that were once part of another country?

Shouldl they be listed in their historical context or as part of the country they belong to now? example Royal Jordanian served Belgrade aa capital of Yugoslavia and pulled out when it was still part of that country, should it now be lsited as part of Serbia even though RJ never erved it as a Serbian destiantions.139.190.175.128 (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Iberia Group destinations

Hello everyone. I have nominated the article for deletion. Please share your thoughts here. Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 01:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Can same be recommended for Air Asia and Lion Air? but in their case the respective carriers do not have separate destination lists139.190.175.128 (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Vandal at Middle East Airlines destinations

Editor is repeatedly adding flags and changing historical entries there from British Mandate Palestine to Israel and Jordan West Bank to Palestine, also over wikilinking.139.190.175.128 (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Indian vandalism?

We seem to have a pattern of adding false orders and changing IATA/ICAO codes for Indian airlines I have protected a few articles today [[Alliance Air (India}]] and Alliance Air destinations as we have a number IPs and now users (possibly the same user) keep changing codes and adding nonsense orders. If anybody can check these out that the codes and information is correct. Same sort of thing with List of airlines of India I have fully protected this but need somebody to double check the current version is OK, I dont like protecting these articles but these changes are getting a bit of a nusiance, Thanks for your help. MilborneOne (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Qatar Airways Cargo

Someone created a seperate article for it unecessarily, can it be deleted? Mustangmanxxx (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

A redirect is more appropriate.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

List of airline flights that required gliding

Listed for AfD deletion discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Wataniya Airways

Previous information of airline is continuously deleted by some one, even if its referenced.139.190.254.44 (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit war starting at destinations section.139.190.254.44 (talk) 01:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
This seems to be an edit war between 139.190.254.44 (talk · contribs) and CBG17 (talk · contribs). I am not sure of the rights and wrongs of their positions but CBG17 deleted the above, which does not bode well for them, and I had to restore it. Any help in restoring calm would be gratefully received. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I have protected both articles for a couple of weeks to encourage users to come to some consensus on the changes required, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
What happened? I requested historic route information be retained, instead, it's been reverted to only new routes in old text style list, is there really even a need for a destinations page in this case? if you think this is a new airline that doesn't warrant retaining past information, then start a new article for it like varous other restarts using defunct carriers names with different IATA and ICAO codes. I do not need consensus, as I set it per Wikipedia standards. 139.190.254.44 (talk) 02:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Specifics of the article content should be discussed at Talk:Wataniya Airways and not here. I will be watching, and I hope some others of us will put it on their watchlists too. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Round 2

The edit war is beginning again, currently over whether the list of destinations should use wiki list or table format. Does this Project have any guideline for the list format? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Project standards?

Can someone clarify why there are standards and consensuses to approve them? some years back a simplified table format was decided upon for destinations, yet people are creating new destination articles with old text style list and saying it's still allowed, if it's so, then why the consensus and upgrade to table style list?

btw so far only one person dared to create old text list at Wataniya airways and interestingly my attempts to update it to new wiki standard table list is being reverted repeatedly with project admin support and old textd look is being allowed to stay and we edit warriors are being told to hold consensus on it amongst ourselves while admin deliberate over it, sounds kinda like a joke, deliberate over what? hold consensus on what? its a simple matter of either keeping new style list or old text style, nothing else.

initially edit warrior kept removing former routes but now has relented to include them but in old text list format looking exactly like current route, it was also decided by consensus is text style list days that terminated routes would only be listed by country name in bold non-wikilinked style and city name next to it in regular text but wiki-linked, no airport information or wikilink to be included, so again consensus format being flouted.

anotjer question is why was he allowed to create a separate destinations article listing only 3-4 routes when these could have been easily accommodated in main airline article? be it in old text style list or even table format, ofcourse i would keep putting in the former routes while he kept tossing them out, so flouted another standard again, with project admin support who allowed edit warrior to keep reverting my project standard edits and maintain his ex-standard article, as mentioned initially he kept removing former routes i.e historic data and information which was included with reference per wiki project standard.139.190.254.44 (talk) 04:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

How can you complain about using text style list when you yourself changed a table to a text style list on Swaziland Airlink [2] so why are you trying to act like you are the innocent one if you are doing exactly the same thing on another page. Also you haven't even messaged me about this to try and resolve it, you're just bringing in other users who quite frankly do not care about the situation which is why no conclusion has been made. So if you want to try and resolve it try actually talking to me instead of others who aren't even involved. CBG17 (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Uninvolved editor's comment: Please do not resort to personal attacks. Also, asking for somebody else's opinion (when clearly the dispute does not seem to be moving forward) can't be classified as a bad idea. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
It is a bad idea if they haven't even acknowledged the person they are having the miss understanding with and tried to resolve it between the two of us but they haven't they have involved other people when it could have been settled between the two of us if they had written a comment on my talk page about the situation CBG17 (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Incase you are not aware there is no rule for listing a handful of destinations on main article page, it can be text or table, and WOW! tracking m edits in other articles, i don't follow yours so stay away from mine.139.190.254.44 (talk) 11:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Creating a new article for destinations in text style list is not allowed, posting a table format list in main article for less than five destinations is nonsensical.139.190.254.44 (talk) 11:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Why am I not allowed to see what you're editing there is nothing against this so what is the problem if i want to look at them i will. I only check them to see what rubbish you're saying about me on various pages that don't need to be said. Where does it say that a text style list in a new article is not allowed give me some evidence instead of picking stuff out the air to show thag you are right in this situation. CBG17 (talk) 2:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@139.190.254.44: It is perfectly OK to track another editor's contributions, for example if you are concerned about their quality. What is not OK is to stalk them and meddle in their editing just to harass them. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I am not stalking or meddling I'm not a weirdo why would i possibly want to stalk someone or here.CBG17 (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I am not aware that you are, I was merely clarifying Wikipedia's position with respect to the IP editor's comment. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
He stalkd my IP and therefore my edit at Arlink Swaziland, not me stalking him read caefully before you post.139.190.254.44 (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
That's plain silly. I presume you are referring to this edit of his at Airlink Swaziland, in which he trivially tidied your edit. That is perfectly normal if one is concerned about another editor's behaviour, it is baked into Wikipedia for very good reason. And don't tell me to be careful, that's even sillier coming from an IP editor who makes unsubstantiated accusations of stalking. If you can't be sensible I am not going to be able to help you. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It appears that 139.190.254.44 believes that the consensus for destination tables was to use the simple table format, but clearly WP:ALD has never been changed and allows both formats. I protected the Wataniya Airways destinations article to stop edit warring between the list and table formats. If both are allowed by WP:ALD then it should be up to a talk page consensus as to which is suitable. If 139 is not happy then perhaps we should discuss and see if there is support for changing to just one recommended format. Anybody have any thoughts on this, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to have multiple layouts for destination list, initially there was just a single one, text version, there was no need for any kind of table, but now instead of one there are three or four options for table, including collapsible in main airline article. it can handle so many destinations that separate destination articles should have become redundant, there should be a single format for destinations, either collapsible table in the main airline article, OR text OR table in separate destinations article, please standardise.139.190.254.44 (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
text list continent wise is causing the same problem for Turkey, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia as before, some want to list he Islamic ones in Asia the other two in Europe, table format has no such issues..139.190.254.44 (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
We dont have to use continents in the text list format so not really an issue. MilborneOne (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps you have a suggestion on which format that can be discussed and a new consensus agreed as that is the only way to change the current guide. MilborneOne (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Text list was always preferred and easy to edit, but people said it looks outdated when elaborate table was created as new option, so simple version of table in use now is best, I would favor just collapsible table in the main airline articles as it would rid unnecessary destination pages from being made but it was never popular, maybe it will be now in consensus, let's see. some people are under the impression every airline needs a destination page as seen in Wataniya case, so unnecessary.139.190.254.44 (talk) 13:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC at WT:AIRPORTS

Hello, your input would be appreciated at this RfC about how we should give references for the "Airlines and destinations" tables of articles about airports. Thank you. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 11:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Planespotters.net

I have just been told off for using Planespotters.net as a citation source. I don't understand why this is regarded as an unreliable source. I have been using it extensively on a range of aviation projects (including on Wikimedia) and have found it generally extremely accurate and up to date. For instance, in most cases it matches entirely with the Global Airline Guide 2017 (from Airliner World and ch.aviation, ie respected sources). This stance on planespotters.net needs to be reviewed please. Ardfern (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Whether accurate or not, planespotters is a fansite.--Jetstreamer Talk 01:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Surely accuracy as a source is important. Don't understand why it being a fansite makes a difference. If by a fansite you mean one kept up to date by volunteers, then it seems little different from Wikipedia itself. Ardfern (talk) 10:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
And Wikipedia is not a valid source on Wikipedia, either, for the same reason: if it's a work that has no central editorial oversoght, then its accuracy is too easily compromised by unscrupulous contributors. Along the same

Lines, don't accept IMDB, as it's now just user contributions, with no actual editorial oversight, but we do accept the Internet Broadway Database, as that has such oversight. The IBDB has a form to submit corrections or contribute missing information, but all such contributions are double-checked by the site administrators before publishing. There's no such double-checking at planespotters.net. It relies on other users making quick corrections when errors are present. This is the same model we use here at Wikipedia, but in both cases, there's a difference between end-used reading and formal sourcing. oknazevad (talk) 10:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, got itArdfern (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Global Airline Guide 2017

I have been using the Global Aviation Guide 2017 (from Airliner World, compiled by ch.aviation) to update airline fleets, ie journal citations. When I did this last year someone tried to stop me on the basis that web citations were preferred over journal citations (supposedly being more easily available and checkable). I have had no such trouble this year (so far), but perhaps someone could advise on the position. I find it hard to believe there is a 'preference' for web citations. Ardfern (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Off-line sources are as valid as on-line ones.--Jetstreamer Talk 01:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
The fact that a source is difficult to access makes no difference. A preference for web citations may be the opinion of some editors, but it is not consensus policy or even a guideline. WP:VERIFY and WP:RS apply the same criteria to all sources. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Excellent. Many thanks.Ardfern (talk) 09:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Surely if a reference is difficult to access then it has no place in the article, the point of a reference is to provide evidence for what has been written but if it can't be accessed how can you tell the reference is correct or not e.g. fleet tables. How will other uses be able to update the tables if the reference provided can't be accessed? just a thought. CBG17 (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
No requirement for a source to be easy to find it just has to be reliable, in this case the Global Aviation Guide has only recently been published so cant be that difficult to find. You dont need the original source to update the information you just need another reliable source. Just to note that the first Part of the guide can be bought from the http://www.airlinerworld.com so hardly in the difficult to access category. MilborneOne (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
The answer to the question above is WP:AGF.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
The WP:VERIFY policy is quite specific about accessibility. I didn't offer that link for showmanship, but for doubters to read and learn from. This is not the place to challenge it, it has its own talk page for such "just a thought"s.— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 00:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

FlightRadar24

Recently had exchange re Iran Air fleet and user has suggested FlightRadar 24 as a reliable source:

I think there is no way to dismiss this site [3] this site is fully consistent with flight information of an airlines and According to this site, my information is correct from the Iran Air fleet.W.nimanimaei (talk) 09:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts anyone. Ardfern (talk) 10:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The data is gathered automatically from actual flights and endorsed, as far as that goes, by sufficient in the industry. But there is no interpretation of what that means: what about long-term leasing, or craft currently grounded or sold on, or flying in the 20% of the globe not currently covered? If the raw data, that aircraft X is flying for airline Y and was at position Z at a certain date and time, needs to be verified in an article then yes, I guess it can be cited as a reliable source. But to cite it in support of a claim that airline Y has X number of aircraft flying for it, or that it flies Z routes, should not be allowed because that would require original research in interpreting its data. The website as a whole also contains a lot of opinionated chit-chat, so that aspect is obviously not reliable either. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Probably reliable to indicate that an aircraft with an IRA callsign and a specifix hexcode was received at a certain point in time and position, not much more the aircraft dont transmit registrations so we can have errors if the FR24 database is wrong. [Conflict of Interest Note, like many others I am a "feeder" of raw data from my own receiver to FR24]. MilborneOne (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
What are your true sources about Iran when most of the resources about Iran are not reliable? W.nimanimaei (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I would not have thought it was difficult to find reliable sources on aircraft deliveries and fleets, Boeing and Airbus publish monthly delivery lists and the companies web site would be reliable. Generally fleet lists and numbers are published in Magazines like Flight International and other magazines also publish delivery information. MilborneOne (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

What to include in the fleet_size and destinations fields of airline infoboxes

Hello there everyone. I just wanted to draw your attention to this discussion, which revolves on including the information of both the mainline company and its subsidiaries in airline infoboxes.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a clear policy on this and there should be one. A common sense approach would be for any reader new to the topic to be able to discern what information they are actually looking at, and at the moment, many pages don't make this completely clear. For example, a reader visiting the page for KLM may not know whether the fleet number includes or doesn't include KLM Cityhopper and then there's confusing situations like that of Avianca where the company has multiple subsidiaries all operating under the same trading name and using the policy Jetstreamer suggests would fail to provide the reader with the information they're looking for. I would suggest all main airlines carry their fleet and destination numbers with either a note indicating that this doesn't include regional/low cost brands or simply include both numbers in the infobox. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

A little bit of help to complete Draft:Gulf carriers

I started a draft article on the Gulf carriers in late 2015 and left it about 70% complete. It was tagged as a user draft, but then got moved to the main draft space last year by another user. A couple days ago, it got tagged as an articles for creation submission to be reviewed. I was going to remove that tag, but instead decided to update the content and added content to a couple of empty sections.

There is one remaining empty section in the draft article Draft:Gulf carriers before it is ready to be moved to the main article space: "Background" (for the history of the airlines and their rise). I don't have much time over the next week or two to finish the draft, so I thought I would ask here for help. Only 2-3 couple paragraphs are really needed. A short paragraph in the subsection "Open Skies agreements" should also be added. I would like to nominate for DYK after it is moved to the article space, so please make sure the added content is referenced! Thanks for your help! (also, note that it is a subject that is almost always referred to collectively and should therefore be the plural "Gulf carriers" not "Gulf carrier". See WP:Plural.) AHeneen (talk) 06:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello there fellow Wikipedians! This time I need your feedback regarding the addition of links to destination articles in multiple airline pages (like this one I reverted [4]), something that, to me, goes against the template documentation in {{airline infobox}}. What do you think about this? Thanks in advance.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Let me add that the latest of such modifications were made by 95.22.161.167 (talk · contribs).--Jetstreamer Talk 00:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Several important articles add links in the infobox to the fleet/destination articles and the turth is that I think it makes the navegation more fluid for the reader, so I put the link [5] to the destinations in the Air Europa article. I have not put the link in the Iberia article neither in the British Airways, Alitalia, Air France etc. --95.22.161.167 (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I removed the links from all the articles I could. The fact that other articles have this or that is by no means a justification for the introduction of such stuff in another one. The inclusion of such links should be made after this matter is settled. The template documentation for {{airline infobox}} is clear to me and the example there does not show any links at all to destination articles. Let's just wait for other to comment here.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Dont include as the link doesnt really add anything which is why it has not been used before. MilborneOne (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
In the mentioned articles it has been used for years, there have been hundreds of editions and nobody has said anything about it, it has been used, and still being used. I defend that it is something useful, the navigation becomes easier for the reader, gives a quick view of whether or not an article with more information exits etc.
In the {{airline infobox}} does not appear any indication about links to the key people articles, and in fact a lot of articles still have links to the destination/fleet articles and all that has an article of the key peole has a link to the respective article. It's ridiculous to say that you must not put the link to the article because in the airline infobox does not appear "[[]]" when it is being used in almost all the articles in wich it can be done.
Include links to secundary articles is the way to have the article close, if not, these articles will not be read by many people who might have an interest in them, the principal articles will be less useful, so isolating secondary articles to the principal makes a no sense guideline. A modification of the guidelines about the infobox to adapt to the usual and more extended procedure would be a good idea. It is only add a link in two sections of the infobox like it is done with cities, provinces, countries, airports, and actually it is provided in the guidelines to add a link to frequent flyer program articles, which looks like almost advertaising than anything else.
Perhaps when the guidelines were completed there was not a quantity of articles about destinations/fleet and key people like nowadays. It this would be a minimal modification that consists in including what is commonly practiced. And besides, the actual practice is absolutely reasonable, and not inserting a link to the secondary articles of the specific issue of these numbers makes a no sense guideline as I said.--95.22.161.167 (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Destination articles are not isolated as they are linked to in the proper section, there is no need to link to them in the infobox.--Jetstreamer Talk 15:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
And what about the links to key people which is also not included in the {{airline infobox}}? Why the links to the frequent flyer program articles are inluded? Do you really think that these articles have a greater importance than key people, fleet and destinations articles? What happens with it (add links to destination/fleet and especially key people artciles) being an extended practice in all articles? You do not answer all the questions of my previous 4 paragraphs message and it doesn't seem that you have read the reasons what is in it.--95.22.161.167 (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
All I see from this thread is that, so far, me and another user are against your proposal. Everything else can be discussed at a later stage.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
What proposal? I have asked clear questions revealing the arbitrary procedure regarding the infobox guidelines which are violated or not by no clear reasons. Where are the answers?--95.22.161.167 (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Destination maps

Should we make it a goal to increase airline destination maps? Many airlines do not have them on their or their destinations pages, and I am not sure if it is needed or if it adds clutter. MSG17 (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I for one think the maps are a positive, and provide a consise visual representation -- Whats new?(talk) 02:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
These maps would fall within what Wikipedia is not, specially WP:NOTRAVEL.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how - they are a visual representation of what is already there. -- Whats new?(talk) 07:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

When is an airline definitely "defunct"?

Please see the discussion between myself and Carbonix at my talk page. An airline is obviously definitively defunct when the company is finally liquidated, but can it be classed as defunct at an earlier stage in the process that might begin with the cancellation of flights, through ending aircraft leases, laying off employees, business restructuring, and so on, right up to official liquidation? My position in the discussion is that short of final liquidation there is a possibility that an airline may return to normal operation. Thus the meaning of "defunct" versus "suspended" needs to be clarified. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

This is wide-spread problem across company articles on Wikipedia. There is always a great fanfare when a company starts up, with press releases, launching a website and such, but most often when a company stops operating there is nothing. Hardly anyone puts out a press release saying that they are out of business. In the case of publicly traded companies you can often tell when they cease trading and are suspended on the stock market, but in the case of private companies the signs can be less clear. Not all companies go through a formal bankruptcy or liquidation process and even if they do it can be a long time after they have ceased functioning. I think we do not serve our readers well if we don't indicate when a company no longer working, because, after all, when a reader has tried to contact a company and can't, their search engine usually sends them to us for some kind of clarification. I think, in the case of an airline, it is important to indicate when they have stopped selling tickets, stopped flying, sold their fleet (or returned leased aircraft), had their website taken down, or when their social media accounts go dormant. These events don't have to be labelled "defunct", but we should be clear to readers that they can't get a ticket on that airline. Even though the airline may not be formally in bankruptcy protection or undergoing liquidated by a receiver. It is very rare for an airline to stop selling tickets, stop flying, take their website down and then recover and pick up operations again. Certainly if they sell or return their aircraft then they are pretty much done. If had to pick a time to put "defunct" on an airline's page it would probably be when the website is taken down as that usually indicates they have stopped selling tickets and stopped flying and it is very easy for us to ascertain. We can then be clear in the text what the status is, as far as is known. - Ahunt (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Imperial Air Cargo and BidAir Cargo

I've stumbled across the Imperial Air Cargo article when doing a cleanup of dead sources, and found that the airline is defunct. I've updated the article to note that it was purchased by BidAir Cargo in 2014 but I haven't, in a 1-minute google, found when it ceased independent(ly named) operations. The infobox might also need updating (I'm not sure).

The BidAir Cargo article is inconsistent in its capitalisation of the first letter of the airline name (the title uses a lowercase b, the lead uses upper case), but I've not got time right now to investigate which is correct. I've also not looked to see if there are any other updates needed to this article. Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Air Seychelles and its destinations

Hello everyone. I'd like to draw your attention to this [6], where the list of terminated destinations was removed. The edits came after the redirection of Air Seychelles destinations to the parent article. Consensus is to have both current and terminated destinations in airline articles, per WP:AIRLINE-DEST-LIST but YSSYguy (talk · contribs) seems to be disregarding these guidelines.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Surviving Aircraft

A user has been adding a list of surviving aircraft to the Canadian Pacific Air Lines which I have now removed twice, as something we dont do. Pretty sure surviving or previously operated aircraft are really not noteworthy and would overwhelm other airline articles with long histories, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a valid application of WP:NOTDIRECTORY to me. Shelbystripes (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
The IP has added it back in again. MilborneOne (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I added the Surviving Aircraft list to the article. I added it because a list of surviving aircraft is an item of interest to airline employees and to airplane enthusiasts. In addition, Wikipedia allowed a list of Surviving aircraft to the article about Trans Canada Air Lines so there is a precedent. Thank you.

You should not have added it back while this discussion is still ongoing as you need to have a clear consensus first. Have a reliable reference that surviving aircraft are noteworthy in an encyclopedia (which is not a webpage for fans and employees but a general encyclopedia). My other concern is that some airlines could have hundreds of entries added to them as "surviving" aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

relevant discussion

See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should Wikipedia have and maintain complete lists of airline destinations?. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Noting here that the discussion has now been closed [7] with a consensus that we should not have these type of articles. So, please don’t freak out if your watchlist lights up with mass deletions of these pages, which I plan to begin doing int he next few hours/days. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
What will become of the two featured lists of this format? And for the lists that were well referenced and could become featured lists with a little work (e.g. the work I've done at Alaska Airlines destinations)? It seems rather heavy handed to delete them all en masse using the Village pump (which many editors never visit) instead of going through the normal AfD process (which at least notifies major contributors). SounderBruce 01:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Strange that WP:NOTDIR can actually apply here for these lists, but not for List of shopping malls in India or List of shopping malls in the United States. WP:NOTTRAVEL can also not be applied since we merely list the destinations with valid references and also mention the hubs and FCs. There is no schedule (including frequency of operation) or type or aircraft or the type of services provided for a particular sector in these lists. Regarding maintaining these articles due to frequent change, I don't think that's a big task either given that airlines do not change their schedule every single day or week, but they rather announce their new destinations in advance. I can hardly see anyone from the aviation project taking part in the discussion cause it looks like it was never notified here which itself was wrong. Sad that these lists that have been developed over years by the hard work of many editors are now to be deleted. — LeoFrank  Talk 04:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Having just seen one of those historical lists disappear without warning, I will echo what SounderBruce says above: these lists should not be speedy-deleted out of process, and rather should be reviewed via the standard AfD process, allowing for review of the list and application of WP:PRESERVE as to any legitimately encyclopedic content that may exist. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox: And we should have been informed about the discussion long before the lists were about to be deleted. Personally, I put a lot of effort in maintaining some of these articles, and it's pretty sad to see them wiped out in a blink of an eye.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Not sure how many times you’d like me to point out that notification was posted here within moments of the discussion being opened and was clearly visible here for the 26 days of discussion. Please don’t ping me about this again until you have something new to say, thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox: Here you have something new [8]. Please restore them all.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is poorly handled. No-one informed the list project that these lists were going to be summarily destroyed. Beeblebrox, that's a massive fail, especially now you've deleted two featured lists without so much as a "how's your father". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Please refer to Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Is_a_consensus_to_remove_an_entire_category_of_articles_sufficient_reason_to_delete_them_all? for further comments.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
For those interested in further developments from this, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adria Airways destinations. YSSYguy (talk) 12:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Redacted per WP:CANVASS.Winged BladesGodric 16:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC) Please go to the link above and participate in the discussion.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Please don't canvas for contributions to the AfD - that's a big no-no. YSSYguy (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The AfD was closed and a DRV was started. Plase go to this link under the Adria Airways destinations sub-title if you would like to participate in the discussion.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

RFC on transportation service lists of destinations

There is an RFC on the inclusion of lists transportation service destinations, including lists of airline destination. See WP:VPP#transportation lists BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Surviving Aircraft

February 6, 2018 - Hi I am the person who inserted the "Surviving Aircraft" section (later changed to "Aircraft on Display") in the Canadian Pacific Air Lines item. I added it back into the CPAL item after it had been added back by someone else into the Trans Canada Air Lines item. I believe as a career airline employee that this information is of interest to persons interested in the airline concerned. Specific aircraft items (e.g. DC-2) already include a "Surviving Aircraft" section - so can't we be consistent? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.238.171 (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

This is more on a list of surviving aircraft in airline articles that have been added to Canadian Pacific Air Lines and Trans Canada, those wishing to add or keep this information dont accept my arguments that this is not something we normally do and if spread to other articles could involve long lists. The recent suggestion is that this should be an "aircraft on display" section to list aircraft on public display in museums and the like that have some link to the airline. I still doubt that having an aircraft on display in a museum that used to fly for the airline is particulary noteworthy but I suggested it be raised here for further discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I can see the value of listing museum aircraft that formerly served with an airline and are presetly on display in the airline's colours. But I cannot see any value in a list of aircraft that once served with airline X and are now with airline Y or Z or in some scrap yard. That is basically WP:TRIVIA. It would make sense to list that sort of thing on an airline fan site blog, though, but not a general encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I propose adding the following to the guide if nobody objects:

Aircraft on Display - Aircraft formerly operated by the airline can be listed if on public display in the markings of the airline for example:

  • Boeing 767-200 N102DA Spirit of Delta is on display at the Delta Flight Museum, Atlanta.

MilborneOne (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

👍 Like - Ahunt (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Airlines) has been updated. MilborneOne (talk) 12:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Airline destinations table: 'Country" for Hong Kong?

I know that this has been discussed in the past but I have seen inconsistency under which country Hong Kong is listed under (some lists Hong Kong with "China" as the country and others list Hong Kong with "Hong Kong" as the country). So, what should it be? 97.85.118.142 (talk) 07:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hong Kong reverted to China when the British lease expired in 1997. Mathglot (talk) 11:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Now part of China as a special administration region not a country.CHCBOY (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Hong Kong is in China.--Jetstreamer Talk 19:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
All true but the main problem in aviation terms is that the international agreements are with HK and not China so route agreements and licences are still under Hong Kong administration not the CAAC I believe which is why it is still listed separately if not correctly as Hong Kong. MilborneOne (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
But the purpose of all articles under the scope of WP:AIRPORT and WP:AIRLINE is just to show which airline serves which destination, not what country has agreements with, as this is a topic to be dealt at, say, Hong Kong–United Kingdom air transport agreements.
Agree it should be China but just wanted to note why it was sometimes treated differently. MilborneOne (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

This question came about from this edit [[9]] on the Air New Zealand Destinations page. Personally I'm not convinced country as a separate column is a sensible idea in these tables but that is not really the issue here other than it forces a choice to be made. The situation isn't as simple as is being made out sometimes China is appropriate in details dealing with Hong Kong and sometimes Hong Kong is a better description. - China or Hong Kong are both correct and wrong at the same time. The concept of country is variable. We are all aware of the change that happened in 1997 but if you were going to write Great Britain/Hong Kong before 1997 then I would unreservedly accept China/Hong Kong for the current situation but I believe that never would have been the case it would just have been Hong Kong. This is similar to the Scotland - Great Britain conundrum, or on the same table here I could make the argument to write New Zealand / Niue. There is border control between Hong Kong and "the rest" of China, Hong Kong citizens are not Chinese citizens and Chinese citizens are certainly not Hong Kong citizens, institutions, laws, and many institutions are all very different. The most important thing here is that Air New Zealand tends to treat Hong Kong as separate - China is Shanghai (and Peking) - Hong Kong is Hong Kong. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Silver Airlines

We have an WP:SPA on Silver Airways that keeps adding negative content after the inclusion was being challenged, appreciate if somebody else could look at this please, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Airline destinations

There is a discussion on right here regarding changing naming conventions. Thank you. 2601:183:101:58D0:14B:BBC0:133D:DB71 (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Templates of nations

I think we should bold the flag carriers at the Category:Airlines by country templates. It will make much easier for readers to immediatelly spot the important carriers because in the way we have it now, a reader gets confused in a sea of airline names in most of the templates. Any thoughts? FkpCascais (talk) 13:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Probably difficult to define "flag carrier" anymore or make a judgement on which are important so I would say all entries should be treated the same and dont use bold. MilborneOne (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
While undersatnding the subjectiveness of the problem in deciding which airliners are "important" and which are not, I still think it wouls be usefull to find some form of differenciation between airliners which were flag carriers and had several douzen of planes from the ones that leased one or two planes and existed just in a flash moment. A sincere honest question: is there a way to source the airline companies which were flag carriers, or not? FkpCascais (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Not really in the old days "flag carrier" had a legal meaning but now is used to indicate the government-owned airline, in the age of privatised airlines the term flag carrier can be misleading. MilborneOne (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, I understand then, my idea is not practical. FkpCascais (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   10:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Flightexec

The article on Flightexec, an airline in Canada, may not have enough of the right kind of references. I tried to find some, but the references are still weak. This problem may also apply to other less-well-known airlines. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

AfD Nomination

I nominated the article Queensland Pacific Airways for deletion primarily due to notability concerns. The discussion can be seen here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queensland Pacific Airways Funplussmart (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment at Talk:AIS Airlines

Hello, I would like some people's opinion about a discussion at Talk:AIS Airlines relating to AIS Airlines and their flight academy aircraft. Thanks. Redalert2fan (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

If anyone has the space for it in their watchlist I would like to get some eyes on the talk page due to repeated vandalism of my comment if possible. Thanks, Redalert2fan (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Are the flight academy and its aircraft actually relevant to the airline, lots of airlines run flight academies but most are hardly of note certainly not the majority of the article. I suggest a further prune might be in order. MilborneOne (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Quite an interesting point, It does not significantly contribute anything of worth to the airline page like this and seems more like trivia. I think its like this because this page is closely related to the nl wiki page which itself actually copies allot from the ais websites etc, so it appears more to be some sort of promotional content or filler to make the page / airline seem more relevant. One point in favor might be that the flight academy provides students for the airline so it is not totally unrelated but as you said lots of airlines do this. Another note might be that the airline/flight academy/maintenance operation run from the same building(s) at the same location. What is true is that the flight academy was there before the airline as mentioned in the article and it could be said that the airline grew from the academy and not the other way around. Upon reading this section in its current state its more promotion than information. I have put an advert tag on it and probably a rewrite is needed. Redalert2fan (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Air Italy (2005–2018) into Air Italy

I have proposed to merge Air Italy (2005–2018) into Air Italy. Please take part to the discussion here. --Deeday-UK (talk) 12:58, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Qatar Airways Cargo vs. Qatar Airways

Hello there everyone! Just wanted to draw your attention that there's an ongoing discussion on whether to have Qatar Airways Cargo as a stand-alone article or to have this content included in Qatar Airways. Thank you.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Destination Lists

A user is using List of United Airlines destinations List of American Airlines destinations and List of Delta Air Lines destinations as an example of style to use at Tibet Airlines rather than the project content guideline. These do need converting (removing IATA/ICAO and move region, although most of them are not really needed) and as I suspect they are a big job is why they have not been done yet. I will change them if I get time but if anybody else want to have a go, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I will start at UA, but removing the 1st-level subdivisions outright is a separate discussion. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
1st level sub-divisions is that the same as region? MilborneOne (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, assuming I interpreted your usage correctly. So, provinces in Canada, China, Korea, Vietnam, etc. states in India, Mexico, U.S., etc., the prefectures of Japan, and so on. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I can understand US/Canada/Australia and the like but some of European ones are never used in real life and just look daft. MilborneOne (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Setting inclusion criteria based on which of the European ones are used in real life would be arbitrary. So is the placement of the top ISO-level region at the leftmost column (before the City served) a strict requirement? Some of the destination list tables I have seen have the City served at the leftmost position, and it would be difficult to write a RegEx to flip that. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
I presumed that the "region" or second level was added to cater for the american states but as we provide a link to the city served it doesnt provide anything to the destination table, it has been populated just because it is an empty field. If it is really needed it should be associated with the City rather than the 1st level country. MilborneOne (talk) 09:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Pan African Air Services nominated for deletion

Discussion here.--Jetstreamer Talk 15:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Infobox capitalisation - MOS:ALLCAPS -

LeoFrank reverted a couple of recent edits ( [10] and [11] ) that restored lowercase characters to the callsign entry in the info box both of which had been lowercase forever until a rather vealous IP editor decided to uppercase them a couple of months ago in a tidal wave of changes that led to this discussion on my talk page [12].

It is still my contention that there is no real sensible reason that these callsigns should be in uppercase as some people seem to assume. In fact MOS:ALLCAPS says..

"Avoid writing with all caps (all capital letters), including small caps (all caps at a reduced size), when they have only a stylistic function. Reduce them to title case, sentence case, or normal case, as appropriate."

...and continues to confirm such in terms that are reasonably clear. The reason uppercase letters are bad is that they are considerably harder to read and comprehend to the average reader than mixed case text. This trend tends to depend somewhat on the length of the words involved and may explain why in these two longish examples the text had originally been entered in mixed case not all capitals. I am not advocating a wholesale lowercasing crusade I just think many of these entries would be better with lowercase characters and kneejerk reverting with pointed edit summaries are not particularly helpful here. Andrewgprout (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

ICAO rules page uses all uppercase on the call sign examples given, which would seem to indicate that that is the preferred written form. Sario528 (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Callsigns are given in uppercase in reliable sources which is why they are presented that way in the infoboxes, they are not considered real words and some dont make sense if not written in uppercase. MilborneOne (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

National Flags in airline alliance articles

There is an Aviation WikiProject discussion about the use of national flags in airline alliance articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#Country Flags for Airline Alliance Tables. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Business class

Do we need to list the different names airlines give to their business class?--Jetstreamer Talk 13:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Since most call it "Business Class," perhaps the list could be cut down to those that don't call it that? - Ahunt (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Avion Express

Have an IP that keeps re-adding a list of clients to Avion Express if anybody else can help keeping an eye on it, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Sario528 (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Watched, too. - Ahunt (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

List of Royal Brunei Airlines destinations

Please note that an IP has persistently removed historical start and end dates from the article, plus added flags. Today, I've reverted them three times. Can someone please watchlist? Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Qatar Airways

Hello everyone. Can someone please take a look at the article? A user keeps adding tons of images to it and using Planespotters as a source [13] [14]. Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Where does it say that planespotters is not a reliable source on this page? CooleoRose154 (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2019 (AEDT)
Planespotters is user-submitted content, see WP:SPS. - Ahunt (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Flybe list of bases

At Talk:Flybe#List of Bases I have started a discussion on the Flybe list of bases which was removed six days ago because of a lack of sources but is still shown (with some differences) on the Flybe destinations page, if anyone has any useful sources for the list of bases please can you add them. Thameslinkrail (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Airline AFDs

The following articles are being considered for deletion: VIF Airways, Zav Airways, and Quikjet Airlines. Sario528 (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I have been using my own benchmark for these startup airlines in that any airline that has actually operated scheduled flights should be included. If they didnt get that far then I would agree that they should be deleted. Other consideration is that they also have been issued with either an IATA or ICAO code. Anybody think my "scheduled flight operated" line that needs to be crossed is unreasonable? MilborneOne (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Seems a resonable assumption to me. Nevertheless, the scope of the notability criteria is wide, and many others may arise. I think we should analyse it case by case.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Agree but we seem to have a lot of start up airline articles being put up for deletion as having no significant media coverage, I was just trying to make a consistent line that I can use that they have to cross to be noteworthy. I dont expect anybody else to adopt it or otherwise but it will be a stance I use in these deletion discussions, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
It sounds like a reasonable benchmark to me, but still has to meet WP:GNG of course. - Ahunt (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Hiya, you might also be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venus Airlines. The benchmark I use is third-party coverage. If there's none, the article gets on the chopping board. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Well that is WP:GNG again. - Ahunt (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Ahunt, well GNG still require "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, we are actually agreeing here. - Ahunt (talk) 02:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Policies and standards on airline cabin descriptions

Fellow airline editors, I invite your opinion on a topic of discussion recently brought up on the talk page for American Airlines. In particular, there exists a discrepancy on the page content guide for this project regarding class information. One bullet describes that "Class of travel (Coach, business, Premium, Executive, First, ...)" is to be included, but later, that "Extensive information about the airline's frequent flyer program, cabin layout and amenities, etc. Remember that Wikipedia is not a travel guide." should not be included. As "extensive information" is not well defined, I think it is necessary to more explicitly outline what is expected in these sections. As I discussed in a response to the aforementioned American Airlines discussion, cabin layout sections exist in length in a variety of existing airline articles (United Airlines, Delta Airlines, British Airways, Lufthansa, etc). I personally feel that these sections should not be removed altogether, but do believe that they could be condensed to some degree. Thoughts? --HunterM267 talk 21:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I would like to stress that WP:NOTCATALOG is Wikipedia policy - our role is not to provide an up to date WP:PROMOtional offering catalog. We are supposed to cover only those products that have received significant coverage in independent RSes. I would also stress WP:RECENTISM - Wikipedia should not focus on current product offerings but rather also historic offerings - in relation to weight of coverage (in AA - I was shocked that the DC-3 (which AA drove the design for) was not in the article at all (I do intend to get around to writing this up) - a topic well covered in books - while seat spacing for each class and aircraft type was described in detail (without sources or AA itself as a source)).Icewhiz (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Multiple awards received by Aegean Airlines

There's an ongoing discussion regarding the inclusion of awards at Talk:Aegean Airlines. Please feel free to comment there. Thank you.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Defunct airlines AFDs

--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

On a similar note if anyone wants to remove this PROD FlyDirect, give a reason and I am unlikley to take it further. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 07:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)).

Destination List

Anybody good at destinations lists who can put Aéreo Servicio Guerrero into some sort of order, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Is it me or is the map absurdly big - and going on the recent record at afd, perhaps better sourcing should be the prioorty.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

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

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Replacement Type

We seem to have a bit of thing going on to add "replacement" to both the current and former fleet sections. I can understand it being in the current fleet if reliable referenced but some of the ones in the former fleet look like they are just a guess and possible not correct. If the airline had a fleet renewal then that should be in the prose and referenced and not in the former fleet. Any thoughts. MilborneOne (talk) 11:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

OK nobody interested. MilborneOne (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Vistara

I have challenged the addition of some alleged issues related to social media at Vistara, users insist that it is really big issue and it gets re-added rather than being discussed. Before I start a topic on the talk pagelooking for other opinions, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I say remove it, it adds nothing encyclopedic to the article.--Jetstreamer Talk 15:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Unnotable accident

Can someone please take a look Biman Bangladesh Airlines? An editor keeps adding an unnotable accident.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:18, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

XJet / X-Jet

The redirects XJet and X-Jet, currently targeting Expressjet and Williams X-Jet have been nominated at RfD. You are invited to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 17#XJet and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 17#X-Jet. Thryduulf (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

MasAir split from Latam

Mas Air regained their independence from the Latam group after they sold it, so they are no longer LATAM Cargo Mexico. Special:WhatLinksHere/LATAM Cargo Mexico lists a to a lot of linked pages to the old name, is it worth trying to change? Would there be an easy way to do this? A Green Guy (talk) 05:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox airline

I've just added the ability to have an image in the infobox in addition to the logo. Most infoboxes seem to have the ability to have multiple images. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Canadian North and First Air

As of 1 November the merger between Canadian North and First Air will be complete and First Air will no longer exist except in the livery. So what is the best way to deal with Canadian North? Should the current article just continue on as is or should it be moved to Canadian North (1998) and a new article started at the current title? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Similar to the previous merger of United Airlines and Continental Airlines, the article name United Airlines continued while Continental ceased operation, even when the logo used in Continental on the tail of the aircraft. In the case of Canadian North and First Air, it should follow the same I suggest. Aviator006 (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Airline Fleet Lists

User:Nguyen QuocTrung is changing the fleet lists to show an as of date of October 2019 without providing any new references. The date must match the references. I have left messages on the talk page, but they are ignoring me. If they dont stop they are creating a lot of work in reverting all the changes. If anybody here can help convince them to stop as I dont want to block them for being disruptive but I may have to. MilborneOne (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Vision Air International

Vision Air International is up for deletion as not meeting WP:GNG. It a small Pakistani cargo airline that operates at least two Boeing 737s on cargo flights. It meets the three things that differentiate it from the many startups, it has an ICAO code and callsign, actually has some aircraft and is actually operating a scheduled service. Anybody help with any references to prove to others that it is of note. thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:Airlines disestablished in 2020

This category has recently been added to Flybe, SilkAir and Tus Airways. In practice, Flybe and Tus are expected to be rebranded, not disestablished per se, and SilkAir is expected to be absorbed into the parent company, Singapore Airlines. I've been resisting on Flybe, but the category keeps getting added again by IP users.

I'm not all that familiar with categories, so before I continue reverting, two questions arise:

  • Are categories relating to events in future years really acceptable, or are they mere crystal ball-gazing exercises that ought to be excluded under WP:SPECULATION or similar?
  • If they are actually acceptable, is rebranding really considered equivalent to disestablishment?

All comments welcome. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Dont think we need categories for things that have not happened, I suspect it goes against WP:CRYSTAL. MilborneOne (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I've deleted the category from the airline articles, but there seem to be quite a few more such speculative categories which I've submitted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 October 28#Category:2020 establishments, FWIW. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Replacement Aircraft

Anybody know where this sudden fetish for adding "replacement aircraft" to fleet lists has come from, most are gueses and very few are referenced. Not really convinced that they belong in fleet lists. I can see a place for them in the narrative if properly referenced. MilborneOne (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Pure speculation in line with WP:ORIGINAL.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Canadian North and First Air part 2

I just updated the Canadian North article after the merger. Need some assistance on hubs, secondary hubs and focus cities. According to this there are three southern gateways, Montreal, Ottawa and Edmonton, the last of which is the only one saying it is a hub. Based on what I could see at the route map I left Yellowknife and Iqaluit as hubs. I added Cambridge Bay as a hub because since the merger there is an aircraft stationed here. What does anyone else think? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. - Ahunt (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Turkish Airlines

Junk2711 (talk · contribs) and me are in a content dispute regarding the use of some references to support the figures in the fleet table. The source they use do not support the figures they intend to, but they claim simple calculations are enough. To me, this is a clear violation to WP:VERIFY. Can someone please take a looks at this? Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I am pointing to WP:CALC in regards to this. For example, the article featured an already cited figure for 11 planes delivered, with the next column saying 54 more were on order. I simply added a citation for the number 54 from an official airline report saying the airline ordered 65 of the planes in total. While Jetstreamer (talk · contribs) says this is original research, I believe it is a very clear and simple calculation using two reliable sources that already existed in the article before me. -Junk2711 (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Sidowpknbkhihj

Sidowpknbkhihj (talk · contribs) has been replacing a lot of images in airline articles with images of their own authorship. I've reverted them in some articles, but they keeps reverting me. I already left a message at their talk regarding this. Thoughts? --Jetstreamer Talk 20:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, quote WP:ACI. He needs to discuss first. - Ahunt (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
The user has been globally blocked.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Well that would solve it. - Ahunt (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:Airlines of Iceland and PLAY

I am in a content dispute with anonymous editors about whether PLAY (airline) deserves a listing as a scheduled airline on Template:Airlines of Iceland. My assertion is that it does not; although it seems to be run by competent professionals with serious financial backing, it remains a proposed airline until it has aircraft, ticket sales, and a definitive flight schedule. I had a short but fruitful discussion with a registered editor on the Talk page about this issue, but the listing has been recreated by an anonymous editor again. Help in building consensus and policing the template would be appreciated. Carguychris (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:Airlines of Egypt

An IP user is changing the table to put airlines in "Full Service" or "Low-Cost" or "Charter" rather than the more usual passenger. I have reverted twice but they have come back to change it again. Am I wrong should they be able to change to these marketing terms, I dont believe we do it anywhere else. MilborneOne (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

As of Fleet dates

Getting a little tired of spending my time reverting changes of "as of" fleet dates to the latest month without changing references - it doesnt work like that, so if the IP reads this please stop wasting everybodies time, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

As they will not stop I have blocked them for 24-hours for adding unreferenced content, if others can check the changes it would be appreciated, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I suspect this is the same person that makes the same changes once a month.--Jetstreamer Talk 11:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
And we have a different IP making the same changes today! MilborneOne (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Suspect is the same person. I've reverted some of them already.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

History of British Airways

I have got an IP user edit warring by adding an image at History of British Airways and who is ignoring requests to go to talk. Appreciate if somebody else could have a look, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 11:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Thai Airways fleet

This article is not in agreement with the project guidelines, more specifically with the ones stating not to include the registrations and the aircraft names. Sourcing is in doubt as well. What to do?--Jetstreamer Talk 17:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

That is a real non-encyclopedic mess. Doesn't even display right. It belongs on planespotters, not here. I would suggest WP:PROD or WP:AFD. - Ahunt (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Had a go at making it look more like a normal fleet article. if anybody has some references it will be appreciated and also need to look out for inclusion of non-encyclopedic stuff. MilborneOne (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Airline Deletion

In a recent Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Italy Egypt I stated that any airline that had actually operated a commercial service is of note, although an argument that has been used in the past it is not written down. Should we note this as a project guide or just let all these short-lived airlines be deleted without an argument? MilborneOne (talk) 13:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Notice on new article

Hi! If anyone wants to help out with OTT Airlines, please do! The subsidiary was launched very recently, so help with updating the destinations and fleet information would be duly appreciated :) — MarkH21talk 09:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 and their implications in the airline industry

I understand we are deeply concerned about the pandemic the world is going through these days. However, is it necessary to state "this airline suspended all flights" of "this other destination will not be served until this date" [15]. We are not a travel guide, aren't we? IMHO, we are a little bit confused on how this encyclopedia is built in the recent days.--Jetstreamer Talk 18:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Probably impossible to police this right now, especially with most of the world off work and thus with lots of time at home to edit Wikipedia. Hopefully one day it can be just removed as "overtaken by events". - Ahunt (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
The effects from the pandemic are notable - and will probably remain notable unlike most other suspensions that find themselves inserted into articles. The reality is that a wider consensus is needed across all of Wikipedia before we can really say that the implications of COVID-19 should not be inserted in this particular industry, as it it obviously does not just affect aviation.
Meanwhile, it is misleading for our lists of destinations and airports to suggest some remain active in the face of reliable sources which confirm they will not be, are not - and may remain that way for a longer time. Neutrality is required. Our airline articles should not serve merely as promotional pieces for the living airlines and historical memoirs for the dead.
The reality is that an an encyclopedia would not have such lists or would only keep lists which indiscriminately include airports that were served without referring to end dates (as in, we do not discriminate between those that are no longer served, those that are currently served or those that might be served in the future). However, this reality conflicts with what occurs at AfD, so there is no way around it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Tigerair destinations

Artclie redirects to merged Scoot destinations list instead of TR previous own list, is it ok or sould TR list be restored?. 139.190.254.44 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Request to update board positions for Oscar Munoz

Resolved

Hello! I've submitted a request at Talk:Oscar Munoz (executive) to add notable board positions to the article about Oscar Munoz, the current CEO of United Airlines, on the company's behalf. The article does not mention he serves on the University of North Florida and Vanderbilt University boards. Would someone WikiProject Airlines mind reviewing this request and updating the article appropriately? Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

This request has been answered. Inkian Jason (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Fuel stops

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I am trying to determine whether some of the destinations in this British Airways route network from 1977/1978 are actual destinations at which passengers could deplane, or if they were only fuel or technical stops, and in that case, not true destinations that we could include in the List of British Airways destinations? I understand that BA might not have had fifth-freedom rights between two particular cities, say between Bermuda and Freeport in the route London – Bermuda – Freeport – Mexico City vv, but could passengers originating in London deplane at Freeport, making it a legitimate destination of the airline? Regards, — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 23:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Gryphon Airlines may now be FK-Gryphon Airlines

https://fkgryphon.com/about-us/ - new website for airline, it seems like it is no longer in Virginia, since the phone # on their new website is in Kuwait, I believe. How would I look up the details to what happened? I did mark the article as being out of date. Funandtrvl (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Fly Aeolus

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fly Aeolus. - Ahunt (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Inquiry to join

Hi! I am interested in joining this WikiProject. Thanks! TheLAXPlanespotter (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Just add your name at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/Participants! - Ahunt (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Austin–Bergstrom International Airport runway incident

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin–Bergstrom International Airport runway incident. - Ahunt (talk) 20:27, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

NetJets page updates

Hi editors, I'm User:NetJets rep JB and learning to navigate the world of Wikipedia on behalf of my employer, NetJets. Because of my paid conflict of interest, I understand I shouldn't edit the article on my own per the site's rules and guidelines. Hoping to collaborate with volunteer editors, I've posted my first request at Talk:NetJets. Having stumbled on this project by way of WikiProject Aviation, I thought there may be editors here who might like to take a look. Appreciation to you for any time spent! NetJets rep JB (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser

Sandbox Organiser

A place to help you organise your work

Hi all

I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.

Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.

Hope its helpful

John Cummings (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Category:Airlines in Alaska has been nominated for renaming to Category:Airlines based in Alaska

Category:Airlines in Alaska has been nominated for renaming to Category:Airlines based in Alaska. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Flight 103 (disambiguation) § Requested move 13 February 2021

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Flight 103 (disambiguation) § Requested move 13 February 2021. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Most-viewed stub article within this Wikiproject

Deccan Charters 16,016 533 Stub--Coin945 (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Air Canada Flight 018 Stowaway incident

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Canada Flight 018 Stowaway incident. - Ahunt (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Non-aircraft destinations

Recently, an IP editor has added a few destinations to List of Sun Country Airlines destinations. These destinations are not flown by Sun Country, but rather operated by Landline. Landline is a bus service that uses Sun Country flight numbers and can be booked on Sun Country’s website. They operate services between airports and cities the airline themselves does not fly. I reverted the edits, but they put them back, since like I mentioned, they have Sun Country flight numbers and the Landline routes are listed on Sun Country’s destination map. However, it’s obvious it isn’t operated by Sun Country themselves and these destinations aren’t even served by aircraft. Since they have flight numbers, are these allowed on the destinations page? I wouldn’t think so, but maybe I’m in the wrong. User has also edited several airport pages, adding these routes. Again, I would think these aren’t accepted since they aren’t routes flown by aircraft, but thought I’d ask to see if they are ok or not. VenFlyer98 (talk) 07:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here. I would say that is doesn't belong, but if this is included it needs to be very carefully explained in the text. - Ahunt (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The user did mention on the destinations page that it is “operated by Landline” but not on the airport pages. Again, I wouldn’t think we would include it since these routes aren’t “flown” but again, not sure. VenFlyer98 (talk) 08:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Clearly doesnt belong in either the destinations section or page, it might be worth a single sentence mention in ground transport but need to be careful of WP:NOTRAVEL. MilborneOne (talk) 08:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Qantas fleet

Can someone please take a look at Qantas fleet? A user insists in adding images everywhere, particularly to the fleet table when this is not standard practice. Thank you.--Jetstreamer Talk 15:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh its not? Sorry I didn't know we had that... if that's so, I can revert back because normally for bus articles we do that method. See Transperth for clarification. Are there any policies like layout in this project? You did not want a gallery so I did the images in a table. I am trying to ensure equal happiness among others, but is it really a big deal if I lay it out something like that against normal practice as I do not want an article looking like a dog's breakfast if you know what I mean? --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 16:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I actually think sometimes that images in the fleet table look far better but that is not the current consensus. MilborneOne (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Alitalia ceasing, becoming ITA - Italia Trasporto Aereo

On October 15, 2021, the assets of Alitalia are becoming a new organization called ITA - Italia Trasporto Aereo. There are reports it might still be branded "Alitalia".[16][17] There might need to be a new separate article for ITA. It could prove confusing if it's called the old brand. There could be a different "Alitalia" article, much in the same way we have different Pan Am articles for each of the name's airline incarnation over the decades. Oakshade (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Request to join

Hello,

I am interested in joining this task force. I haven't been on Wikipedia for too long, but I know a good bit about aviation and have made a decent amount of contributions to Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport, as I live close by. I also have some reliable grammar tools and can clean up pages that need attention. Thanks PlaneCeiling912 (talk) 13:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Great! Welcome aboard. We need all the help we can get! - Ahunt (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:TEAL § Article title

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:TEAL § Article title. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Hong Kong and Macau on destination lists

I have recently moved “Hong Kong” and “Macau” to “China” on some airline destination lists as they aren’t seperate “countries”. Recently most of these edits have been reverted by mostly IPs based in Hong Kong. I have gone through this wiki project talk and have found no clear consensus on this topic. Currently I am in the process of changing many of the destination lists so it shows Hong Kong as “Hong Kong/Macau, China” as although Hong Kong and Macau has its own laws and regulations, it is still governed by China itself and cannot be defined as a seperate “country”. I have also added notes to the “China” section which states special administrative regions are excluded. This is mostly due to most airlines marking Hong Kong and Macau as part of Hong Kong, China or Macau, China. There are however many airlines such as Singapore Airlines and Qantas who considers Hong Kong to be part of “China”.

I have came up with different options to this issue.

  • Merge Hong Kong and Macau with China
  • List as Hong Kong/Macau, China and add a note with “China”
  • Follow sources of the airline
  • Leave Hong Kong and Macau by itself
  • Other please specify

Currently the IPs don’t like any of the first three options as they have been reverting them regardless. I am keen to hear everyone’s thoughts.

ThePoi (talk) 13:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Hong Kong has its own aviation administration and international agreements and as such is separate from China in these matters, hence it appears on its own right in destination lists. MilborneOne (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Should Hong Kong be listed as “Hong Kong, China” or “Hong Kong SAR, China” then? Most airlines including airlines based in Hong Kong list Hong Kong as being part of “Hong Kong, China” or “Hong Kong SAR, China”. Most airlines also list cities in China as part of “China” or “Mainland China”. Hong Kong is still technically governed by China and isn’t a “country” but has its own administration and agreements.ThePoi (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Those information should belong to the articles on these countries. You may consider wikilinking all those names under the country column. No more POV-pushing. The meaning of the English word "country" isn't like what you said. 219.76.24.215 (talk) 08:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
@MilbourneOne this appears to be complementing what'd happened a couple of years ago: [18][19][20][21]. These people have tried it all across Wikipedia on multiple battlegrounds. See also WikiProject Aviation's talk page and Talk:List of Air France destinations. 219.76.24.215 (talk) 08:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

IndiGo

Can someone please take a look at the article? An IP is adding [22] and re-adding [23][24] an "incident" without rationale.--Jetstreamer Talk 11:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I mean for me, doesn't not count as an incident from the word nabbed in an aircraft. It's not necessary to put that either. Incidents should be like hijacking or something else. That's all. Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 12:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Watched. - Ahunt (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Air Transat

Hi all,

I'm just wondering if the way the Air Transat fleet section is set tup is ok or not. Under the fleet section, the A310 is listed as an active aircraft, however these aircraft were retired by Air Transat in early 2020 and will never fly again with them. There's articles to support this, and sources on the Air Transat page itself. However, the plane is still being listed under the active fleet since it is still registered by Air Transat with Transport Canada. Personally, I disagree with this being listed here, as the column is listed as "in service" and these planes are no longer in service. I feel a normal person browsing Wikipedia may see the fleet list and assume the A310 is still in service with the airline when it's clearly not (again, there are multiple articles out on the internet saying Air Transat retired the plane). WP:AIRLINE-FLEET-LIST says the fleet category is for "A list of the aircraft flown by the airline and the number of each" yet these planes aren't flown by the airline anymore. I remember several months ago I tried to remove the A310 and it got reverted back. I haven't seen another airline page on Wikipedia that has a retired plane kept in the current fleet section just because it is still registered. Other Canadian airline pages, such as Air Canada and WestJet don't do this. I think that moving the A310 to the retired section with a note saying it's still registered is fine (which is currently there) but just because it's registered doesn't mean it's "in service" and I think it should be removed from the active fleet table.

Thoughts on how this should be handled? Thanks. (VenFlyer98 (talk) 06:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC))

Remove from "Current Fleet" and add to "previously operated" with a reliable reference that they are no longer in use. MilborneOne (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good, and looks like other editors have already fixed it up (VenFlyer98 (talk) 08:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC))

Mass editing

Random Haste has been rapidly changing the "as of" dates on fleets to February, 2022. It seems unlikely that they could be verifying this so quickly. Perhaps someone from this project can look into this further. MB 17:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Noted, most of these are not supported by updated refs and so will need to be all reverted. I think the user name was a clue. - Ahunt (talk) 17:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, there are many warning on their TP and a prior ANI. Their edit history shows many of their edits have been reverted as unsourced. Probably time for another ANI. MB 17:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Unless an admin wants to step in here, then yes. - Ahunt (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
I have reverted all their edits, but, yes they need blocking for disruption. - Ahunt (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
For the record, the user stated in their talk page that they would not waste their time in editing Wikipedia. Block them already and finish with the burden of undoing their edits.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Global Jet Luxembourg

Hi, I'm reaching out in hopes of finding editors with knowledge of and interest in articles about air charter companies. The article Global Jet Luxembourg has been a bit of a COI SPA/sock magnet in recent years. However, looking at the state of the current article, I can see some issues with it - my impression is that the article is fairly outdated (the company weblink is a 404, and I think they've rebranded under a different name now), the sourcing looks weak to my inexperienced eye, and it generally could do with a bit of TLC. I'm not looking for anyone to turn it into an advert, which is what the socks have attempted to do, but if anyone wanted to give it a once-over that might be a good thing. Alternatively, if they firm doesn't pass WP:NCORP, it might be better to send it to AfD. Would appreciate thoughts from editors with experience in this area. Best Girth Summit (blether) 19:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

FLRC notification for List of Cathay Dragon destinations

List of Cathay Dragon destinations has been nominated for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

UTC)

Move corrections needed

Please see the discussion here. I have undone that move, but the editor made many others as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

And here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

This has now got in a real mess - partly my fault. It involves the name change from United Air Lines to United Airlines. More comments sorely needed. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Lists of airlines by country

There are way too many pages in Category:Lists of airlines by country with only a handful of entries. I'd recommend merging all the ones with fewer than around 10 entries to the continental list, such as List of airlines of Africa. I have prodded 7 list articles with zero entries:

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Notice of relevant discussion

A discussion of interest to this WikiProject is underway at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation § Aircraft images in airline infoboxes. Ibadibam (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of simpleflying

This article makes me wonder about the realiability of simpleflying. It can be read "According to Wikipedia" in the section "No more A320s either". Jetstreamer Talk 11:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

The sad fact of life is that Wikipedia is now so famous and relied upon that most journalists use it at least for background information and a starting point when writing a new media article. - Ahunt (talk) 14:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Aviajet nominated for deletion

For your information: the stub article for the Irish charter broker/virtual airline Aviajet has been nominated for deletion on the grounds of non-notability. If you wish, you may contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aviajet. Thank you. XAM2175 (T) 14:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Turkish Airlines fleet

See here. Thanks. ~StyyxTalk? 21:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Vistara 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Infobox TFM notification

Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 January 22 § Template:Infobox aircraft begin for a discussion about a series of infobox templates in the purview of this project. Primefac (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Japan Airlines

Japan Airlines has been nominated for a 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. Femke (alt) (talk) 09:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of Planespotters.net

Please note that I have started an RfC regarding the reliability of Planespotters.net as a source. You can find it at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Planespotters.net. Thank you. Jetstreamer Talk 23:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Helicopter airlines' notability

Help would be appreciated double-checking some recent changes I have made to the List of helicopter airlines, particularly as to the notability, or lack thereof, of Blade Urban Air Mobility, CalvinAir, and OSS Air Management. Thanks, Meticulo (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project decides to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Image Galleries in Fleet Sections

I’ve noticed recently that there has been a lot of back and forth between editors regarding the use of galleries in the fleet section of airline articles. If you looks at some recent edits on pages like Delta Air Lines fleet or United Airlines fleet some users keep posting and removing edits involving numerous pictures of aircraft. This relates to some users claiming WP:NOTGALLERY while others claim galleries are ok. Thought I’d post here and ask what everyone’s thoughts are on image galleries for an airline’s fleet and whether or not they’re ok to avoid edit warring between users. Thanks, VenFlyer98 (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy is at WP:GALLERY, which says A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the below paragraphs or moved to Wikimedia Commons. That settles it for me! - Ahunt (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
A gallery of the aircraft mentioned is hardly "indiscriminate". SurferSquall (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Agree with this. Hoping we get some other replies with thoughts from other users as well. VenFlyer98 (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
My reasoning is that- why not? Images are helpful for those who want to easily see what the aircraft look like, and are not a nuisance to anyone else. SurferSquall (talk) 04:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
We'll see what others say, but you can see the WP:GALLERY policy. Additionally, there are many images on the pages for the individual aircraft. If a reader wanted to learn more about, let's say a 787, they could click on the 787 link and go to the page for Boeing 787 Dreamliner and there are photos there. VenFlyer98 (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
I fail to see anything in WP:GALLERY that prohibits this. SurferSquall (talk) 03:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
We have WP:COMMONS for image galleries. Besides this, it is read "A gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images" in WP:GALLERY. Please explain how aircraft images illustrate anything else beyond the fleet tables.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Fleet Splits

I have attempted to split various airline fleets into seperate articles for convenience of readers/standardization; various editors have reverted these. see Korean Air, Qatar Airways, Asiana Airlines. I am hoping to come to a consensus on this. Most other major airlines have their own fleet articles; see United, American, Delta, Southwest, Air Canada, Lufthansa, BA, etc. Please offer your thoughts on this if you have any. SurferSquall (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

FLC review of List of Braathens destinations

I have nominated List of Braathens destinations for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. FOARP (talk) 09:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Notification of AFD discussion

See here for an AFD discussion of 14 lists of airline destinations. FOARP (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Piecemeal RfD of airline destination lists

FYI, three airline destination lists have been added to RfD today: Gol Transportes Aéreos, Flybe and Eurocypria, citing WP:NOT and a 2018 RFC. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

One more deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Libyan Airlines destinations.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Considering the above RfDs, I think a single discussion involving them is better than a one-by-one procedure. I do not see the need for discussing the very same topic over and over in different pages.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi all, I've added Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Air Polonia destinations and 6 other related lists to the AFD. The airlines nominated are largely defunct and a brief WP:BEFORE suggests it would be difficult to find independent sources for them to stand alone. Coastie43 (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Air Berlin destinations and four other defunct airlines has been added to the discussion. Coastie43 (talk) 04:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

airlinehistory.co.uk

I stumbled upon the https://airlinehistory.co.uk/ website while trying to find more information on an obscure Canadian airline. Any comments on whether it meets WP:RS? It has a large number of contributors but feels distinctly homegrown and doesn't seem to list sources consistently. Carguychris (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Notification of AFD discussion

A discussion has been opened regarding the deletion of 82 airline destination-list articles that can be seen here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Air Midwest destinations FOARP (talk) 14:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Hey, Need some answers.

So I Was told that Planespotters is an unreliable source (Prob. AirFleets too). I Was given 3 already (AvWeek, Flight Global, and Key Aviation). Any other reliable sources apart from Airline Websites?

Gladly Appreciate. Mmartinezmdr (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

We actually have a whole page on just that subject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Resources! - Ahunt (talk) 12:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Thats What I Needed! Mmartinezmdr (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Glad that was helpful! It is always worthwhile to ask. - Ahunt (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Notification of AFD discussion

See here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Air Nippon destinations FOARP (talk) 09:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Hubs in Template:Infobox airline

Currently the instructions for Template:Infobox airline say that editors should use the full name of the airline's hubs, secondary hubs, focus cities and operating bases. That can lead to a situation like what we see on the Saudia page where the list reads like this:

  • King Abdulaziz International Airport
  • King Khalid International Airport
  • King Fahd International Airport

This is absolutely meaningless to the casual reader (our audience) and probably many knowledgeable readers too. I'd like to propose we move to a system of using the same city names as we use elsewhere (such as Template:Airport-dest-list). Under my proposal, the above example would look like this:

  • Dammam
  • Jeddah
  • Riyadh

Any thoughts on this change? -- RickyCourtney (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The first thought is that it contradicts the template infobox's documentation. I am against your changes unless you gain consensus for the change there.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Per your request, I've moved my proposal to the Template:Infobox airline talk page. RickyCourtney (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification, will drop some lines there.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

First Class and Business Class articles

Currently, there's a First class travel and a First class (aviation) article. On the other hand, there's a Business class article. I'm wondering if it might be worth splitting the business class article into Business class and Business class (aviation) as well or if it would be better to merge the first class articles together or even just keep it as it is. Thoughts? Sgubaldo (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Seat Layout Breakdown

Hi all,

Dug through the archives but couldn’t find a topic related to this. Was wondering if there’s a consensus on handling airlines with an aircraft type that have different seat layouts. For example, an airline may have a 777 with 240 seats, but have another 777 with 300 seats. In some fleet tables, such as Delta Air Lines fleet, the total number of in service planes covers just the type, such as 1 number for A321neos in service despite having 2 layouts. On the other hand, pages like United Airlines Fleet or Air India Fleet have separate in service numbers for each layout. WP:ALFC doesn’t really give a good example of what to do in this case, other than the “information not to be included” section saying to avoid extensive information about cabin layout and amenities. Personally, I think just 1 number for in service is better with multiple seat counts as once the planes are in service, it can be difficult to find the exact number of planes with a specific layout currently in service from a reliable source, most sources may just list the in service number by aircraft type, not layout. Additionally, I’m not sure how close to WP:NOTTRAVEL tables get by listing in service numbers by seat layout. Feel like tables may start getting to close to being a guide at that point. Let me know your thoughts though, would love to know a consensus to keep tables pretty even across airlines.

Thanks, (VenFlyer98 (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC))

@VenFlyer98: I think we should just provide the total number of passengers, without going into the different cabin classes. For example, in the United table we could write that the airline has 37 Boeing 767-300ERs with a capacity of 167 or 199 passengers. All those extra details sound trivial to me and more like what you'd find on the airline's website or SeatGuru. Sunnya343 (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Feedback on draft

If anyone is free, please give me feedback on/review my draft. Thank you! Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 03:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

This incident does not appear to meet the minimum notability guidelines set forth at WP:AIRCRASH. The accident was not fatal to humans, it did not result in a hull loss, and appears to have not resulted in any significant changes. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Aeroflot destinations

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Aeroflot destinations. Sunnya343 (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United Airlines destinations

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United Airlines destinations. Sunnya343 (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

A deletion review is taking place: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 March 28. Sunnya343 (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Lists of airline destinations nominated for deletion

I have nominated 153 lists of airline destinations for deletion. Here is a link to the discussion page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Airways destinations. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I have made a request for deletion review here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 April 3 § List of British Airways destinations. Sunnya343 (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Primary source concern at WestJet Encore

A couple months ago, WestJet Encore, a featured article, was tagged with several "Primary sources" orange banners. Is anyone willing to address these concerns on the article's talk page? If not, this may be sent to WP:FAR. Z1720 (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Join WikiProject

Hello, somebody please provide me a link to sign up to WikiProject Airlines. I am a member of the Aviation WikiProject, but I can't join WikiProject Airlines. BuddyHeigh (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean the Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/Participants page? CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 14:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Ryanair Page Setup

Notifying Cagliost with this. Hello, all. There’s been a back-and-forth the past few months over at Ryanair and I was hoping we could get the wider Wikipedia aviation community involved for feedback/consensus. Originally, and for a long while, the page had a single infobox (following the Template:Infobox airline format). Recently, a 2nd infobox was added for the parent company. I feel as though this isn’t really needed, although other editors disagree. Most people going to the page are most likely going to read about the airline, not the parent company. Additionally, plenty of other airlines have parent companies that we don’t have full infoboxes for. Airlines such as Allegiant Air, EasyJet, Avelo Air, etc. don’t have full infoboxes for parent companies. I feel this bloats the page and the information can be included in the article rather than taking up infobox space on a page for an airline, but I wanted to hear the thoughts of others. VenFlyer98 (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

In the case of Ryanair, the article deals with the group company and the airline Ryanair DAC. They are in the same article because the DAC predates the group, so it is more natural to deal with the company history in a single article.
Your proposal to combine the infoboxes causes some problems. It puts the Ryanair DAC CEO in the "key people" field, but ignores the CEOs of the other subsidiaries. It lists the subsidiaries in the same box as the Ryanair DAC callsign, which is misleading/incorrect.
"Most people going to the page are most likely going to read about the airline, not the parent company." This is a red herring, and, I think, false. Most people don't know the distinction, and those who do, may well want to read about both. In any case, you have been populating the infobox with group info rather than DAC info.
What do you think the advantages of a single infobox are? The claim that it "bloats" the page is false, since it's the same amount of information, just split (correctly) between two boxes. cagliost (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Sorry Cagliost but I have to agree with VenFlyer98 on this one! It's unnecessarily clunky and inconsistent with the vast majority of other airline articles. If there is enough appropriately sourced history and detail relating specifically to the parent company that it needs an infobox, then it should probably be split off into a separate article. We have an article on Air France–KLM, the holding company that owns both Air France and KLM, but both airlines still have separate articles.
Whether a reader who looks up an airline is also interested in the parent company will depend on the individual and context. It is a poor rationale to deviate from a standard format. Besides, the Template:Infobox airline already has a field that allows us to wikilink to an article on a parent company. Per MOS:INFOBOX, less information contained in infoboxes generally serves the purpose of summarising the key facts most effectively. Using multiple infoboxes to try to clarify the relationship between two separate entities seems to go against the intent of the MOS. Dfadden (talk) 07:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't think the analogy with Air France-KLM works. Are you proposing to split the Ryanair article into separate articles for Ryanair DAC and Ryanair PLC? I don't think that's a good idea for the reason given above (makes company history more confusing to have separate articles), see also the discussion about it at Talk:Ryanair. cagliost (talk) 08:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
An alternative I considered was to use Infobox Company for the holding company. But this wasn't ideal because it lacked certain parameters like fleet size. I assert that using one infobox is *more* clunky because it forces us into either saying falsehoods (like Ryanair DAC has a fleet size of 500+, or Ryanair Group has a callsign), or leaving information out that is better in the infobox than in the article.
I suggest that, as a starting point, users proposing a single infobox should clarify whether they want it to be for Ryanair DAC, or Ryanair Group, and then we will know what information will have to be removed. cagliost (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I am suggesting a split of Ryanair DAC and Ryanair Holdings PLC into separate articles and I acknowledge your comment that [...] I don't think that's a good idea for the reason given above (makes company history more confusing to have separate articles). However, that is very subjective. My proposal also addresses those falsehoods that you mention about callsigns and fleet sizes, but more importantly it reflects that the two companies are separate entities with different functions - the holding company is concerned with group finances and assets and provides oversight to make sure policies are consistent between with brand identity and strategy across subsidiaries. It does not provide any services to the travelling public. The DAC is a subsidiary company that is responsible for the day to day operations of running an airline like scheduling, route development, maintenance and customer facing functions etc. As they have distinctly different functions, it makes more sense to treat them as separate entities! Dfadden (talk) 00:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Well, then you'll have to propose the split on the article talk page! There has already been a bit of discussion on this. I don't think your proposal will find much favour, and I think you should reconsider. The case of Ryanair group is really not much like that of, say, Air France and KLM, two companies with independent histories.
In the meantime, I'll leave it as two infoboxes. Again, if someone wants one infobox, they should clarify which they want to delete, the group or the DAC. cagliost (talk) 07:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I am in favor of two infoboxes, because the content of the one infobox with the headline "Ryanair Holdings" is factually wrong:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryanair&oldid=1225036503

  • The IATA code of Ryanair Holdings or of every airline of the group is not FR.
  • Same for the ICAO code and callsign
  • Ryanair Holdings was not founded 28 November 1984; 39 years ago
  • Ryanair Holdings did not commence operations 8 July 1985; 38 years ago
  • The parent company of Ryanair Holdings is not Ryanair Holdings
  • The founders of Ryanair Holdings were not Christopher Ryan, Tony Ryan and Liam Lonergan

Having two infoboxes helps the reader to understand the difference between the airline Ryanair and the group. 2A01:599:215:4135:9:DE38:A4E2:F58A (talk) 07:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Tulpar Air

As it stands, this article does appear to be notable. I could find no English language reliable secondary references. The only primary source I could find is the airline's website (https://en.tulpar.aero/structure/tulparaircompany). However, mid last year, a new editor removed a bunch of text and foreign languages references. Could someone from this project assess whether those deletions should be reverted, or the article should be PRODed, or something else. 76.14.122.5 (talk) 03:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

References don't have to be online or in the English language - and the editor who deleted them didn't give any reasoning for the deletions, and some of the references deleted were RS - including Airliner World magazine.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Rex Airlines voluntary administration unsourced/incorrect editing

There is growing media speculation that the Australian Rex Airlines will announce voluntary administration in the next 24 hours or so - I'm at risk of 3RR because editors are incorrectly changing the article without citation to state that the airline has completely ceased operations.

I've also added a hidden note next to the present tense word "is" warning editors not to change it to "was" in the lead section - something similar was done for Bonza and Air Vanuatu for their respective voluntary administrations recently. Fork99 (talk) 11:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

LIAT appears to have recommenced scheduled operations?

I've recently seen reports of LIAT having returned as a new company, LIAT (2020).

I haven't edited the article as I am unsure if this article is only supposed to contain information about LIAT (1974), or about the airline in its entirety. Apparently it held its inaugural flight on 6 August (today).

Here are some of the reports I have seen:

Current destinations:[1]

New website:

References

  1. ^ https://caribbean.loopnews.com/content/liat-2020-launches-operations-inaugural-flight-today

CROIXtalk 19:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Voepass Linhas Aéreas#Requested move 12 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Voepass Linhas Aéreas#Requested move 12 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines/Archive_8&oldid=1253352825"