Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:54, 28 August 2012

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Airports and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Aviation: Airports Project‑class

This page is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This page is supported by the airport project.

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Airports and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Aviation WikiProject
General information
Main project page (talk) Announcements and open tasks (talk) → AfD record (talk) → Article alerts → Maintenance (talk) → New articles (talk) → Resources (talk) Notability and Style guide (talk) Showcase and Popular pages
Departments Assessment (Log) (talk) → B-Class / A-Class → Instructions Collaboration (NB: Inactive) (talk) Outreach department (talk) → Current newsletter → Contest (talk) Peer review (talk) The WikiEagle (talk) → Current issue
Project organization Coordinators (talk) Members (talk) Portals Project banner (talk) Project category (talk)
Templates Infobox templates → Aircraft begin infobox (talk) → Aircraft occurrence infobox (talk) → Airline infobox (talk) → Airport infobox (talk) → Aviator infobox (talk) → Company infobox (talk) Navigation boxes (talk)
Sub-projects Aircraft project (talk) → Engines task force (talk) → Rotorcraft task force (talk) Airlines project (talk) → Defunct Airlines task force (talk) Airports project (talk) Gliding project (talk) Aerospace biography task force (talk) Air sports task force (talk) Aviation accident task force (talk) Military aviation task force (talk) Soviet aviation task force (talk)
v t e

Airport vandals reported to AN/I

Hello guys. I have finally posted a message on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding users with IP addresses 180.149 and 58.97 whom have been vandalizing airport articles. The thread is Vandalism of Airport articles. Just wanted to let you all know about this. —Compdude 22:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion has been moved to here from AN/I, so to provide some context I've included comments from there below:

—Compdude 03:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I posted over there, bringing the discussion back here. Since the range blocks seem impractical, looks like the only option may well be limiting these articles to registered users only for now. So, the best bet may be to list the affected articles here and then one of the admins in the project can do the blocks without additional discussion. Shahjalal International Airport was already protected twice and is now protected for 1 year. Other admins can adjust as needed. In cases like this Misplaced Pages:Pending changes would seem to be a desired option, but that is not available. ANI gets archived very quickly compared to this page so we should be able to see the history more easily here. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protecting doesn't work; that's why I brought this issue to AN/I in the first place. See my comment there. —Compdude 00:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

So let me summarize: AIV is useless because they require someone to be "currently active", not 25 vandal edits 24 hours ago. AN/I is useless because they won't range block and unable to protect a project. So for months I as a non-admin have been slamming each IP with a Vandalism4im warning and report to AIV if it doesn't stop. (Too often they do.)

So may I suggest, instead of me slamming a "4im" warning, that an in-project administrator can slam an immediate one-year block for each IP that pops up from these ranges doing airport edits? HkCaGu (talk) 02:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Or semiprotect and block the one IP? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Both would be best, but simply semi-protecting an article doesn't cut it. On a side note, it's kind of annoying that now this discussion is now taking place in two places. I'd say for now let's keep discussing here, and tell people on AN/I to come to this page to discuss the issue. —Compdude 02:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

@Vegaswikian you said on your comment at AN/I that you'd suggest having an admin keep an eye on this sort of vandalism. The problem is that there isn't really an admin who frequents the Airports wikiproject, and I'm sure you, Vegaswikian, probably keep an eye on a lot of articles and can't really focus on just one topic like this. Other than possibly MilborneOne (talk · contribs), (who is more focused on just aviation but not as closely as me) I don't know of any other admin that could keep an eye on this user. Perhaps one of us should request adminship, though I'm not exactly sure what it takes to become an admin. —Compdude 03:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

For this vandal I'm suggesting that you report the instances here. There are at least 3 admins that I recall being involved with this project. So I'm hoping one of us will be able to respond to these requests in a reasonable length of time. Or you can go back to ANI wish does not seem like the right forum for this. Right now one article is protected, are there more that have been vandalized in the last day? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

There are a LOT more pages being vandalized than you might think. Another user told me on my talk page that Shah Amanat International Airport was another Bangladesh airport prone to vandalism by this IP user. HkCaGu has been fighting these vandals much more closely than I have; just look at his contributions and see how many pages are being vandalized. It seems to be such a large extent of articles that it'd be impractical and time-consuming to semi-protect all of them. He is also much more closely involved in this project than I am, and his contributions are proof of the extent of this vandalism. —Compdude 05:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Take a look also at the Philippine vandal: Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of 112.204.10.208 HkCaGu (talk) 06:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Ugly. Note that some of those were blocked. If they come back, post here. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm here almost every day but I usually only check this page once or twice. You should post here and then make a comment at my talk page so that I notice it. I am more than happy to block or protect, either way. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, here's the latest incarnation of 180.149.7.195: Special:Contributions/58.97.175.7. HkCaGu (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocked. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Didn't know that CambridgeBayWeather was an admin too. That would be great if him and HkCaGu could work together to block this vandal. —Compdude 19:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

We do have a few admins that work regular on the project and have a lot of airports watched, although I appreciate it can be frustrating if one of us doesnt notice! Perhaps a list of project members who are admins may help others, if they get no response here they can see if one of us is active and drop a line on our talk pages. MilborneOne (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are two latest IPs of the same person from Bangladesh: Special:Contributions/58.97.155.175, Special:Contributions/180.149.8.45. Should we also discuss what time period it should be for a block? I'm still advocating one year, especially we're not range-blocking, but I'd like to hear it from an administrator's perspective. HkCaGu (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

We would not block an IP for that long as it is likely to be re-allocated to a different user after a time, some of the dynamic IPs can be re-allocated daily when the user logs on. I have semi-protected the two article that were edited per your last. MilborneOne (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I think one month would be an acceptable length for a block. It's long enough that the vandal won't come back and start vandalizing from that IP, but it's short enough that it would have limited effects on other IP users who come on here. —Compdude 17:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that Vegaswikian blocked Special:Contributions/58.97.175.7 for three days. Perhaps even that may be sufficient, considering how often the IP addresses change. —Compdude 17:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The Ankara vandali a.k.a. User:Efekamer just registered Special:Contributions/Sucuk, and then back to an IP, Special:Contributions/178.247.43.102. HkCaGu (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Two new ones: Special:Contributions/88.244.186.77 and Special:Contributions/178.247.167.250. HkCaGu (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

From this I was looking at protecting Esenboğa International Airport, but I see that there appear to be a large number of constructive edits from IP accounts. Recommendations? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen any significant constructive IP edits in the recent month or two. It's been largely the same guy--and many others reverting him/her. HkCaGu (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

S/he's right back again: Special:Contributions/178.244.171.0. HkCaGu (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Any new vandalism or has it stopped? —Compdude 19:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Airport titles

Hello. I'd like to standardize the titles of airports, because the style used at current is unclear. Some use slashes (Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport), some use hyphens (Raleigh-Durham International Airport), and some use en dashes (Seattle–Tacoma International Airport). They all have benefits and downsides, but I'd like to establish a standard, according the MoS on article titles. Thanks! David1217 03:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Hyphen vs en dash should be standardized, but I don't think we can standardize on those vs slashes, since we ought to defer with the official title used by the airport itself. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 05:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The MoS does say to avoid slashes, but official usage probably overrules that. So should a large requested move be filed (assuming other people agree with your logic) to change the hyphens to dashes? David1217 15:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that widespread usage of a name in the real world should usually take precedence over internal en.wiki norms, if there are substantial differences (though I wouldn't lose sleep over a hyphen versus a dash). Of course, some article titles are not neatly lined up in a row, but that is rarely obvious or problematic for typical readers (as opposed to stalwart editors), and it merely holds up a mirror to the messy and inconsistent use of names in the outside world. Others would disagree with this stance, though. An RM could be a good approach; a place for people to discuss it and form a consensus... bobrayner (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

My preference would be for hyphens (-) over en dashes (–), as regardless of what is typographically correct, most people will type the hyphen since that is what is on their keyboards, as opposed to requiring a special sequence to type the en dash (Option-Hyphen on a Mac, don't know what it is on Windows). So if we used en dashes, we'd have to create redirects for the hyphen version in order for people to be able to type the article title in the search box, and I also imagine we'd end up with a lot of links to the redirect. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point - but redirects are cheap, of course, and we'd end up with several redirects regardless of how this question is settled, simply due to the nature of airports. (Example: Heathrow has a simple name with no ambiguous typographical marks, but there are still 32 redirects pointing to it). bobrayner (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

We probably should do an RfC or something before starting an RM. If we file an RM, that means we know whether we want hyphens or dashes, and we just need outside approval. Right now we don't even know what we want. David1217 15:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The last case at WP:NDASH(2) seems to say that the hyphen (not endash) is the appropriate punctuation for most airports, being "compounded proper names for single entities". Conveniently, this fits with common usage. —— 19:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so shall we make these changes or what? I don't have anything against using endashes instead of hyphens, as long as the hyphenated version redirects to the endash version of the page. —Compdude 19:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Now an RfC. David1217 19:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Compdude123: I think you mis-read the above. I've emphasized the key part. —— 21:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Misplaced Pages style and naming WikiProjects and collaborations When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the names of airports be standardized with:

1. Hyphens – Raleigh-Durham International Airport
2. En dashes – Seattle–Tacoma International Airport
3. Slashes – Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport
4. Spaces – London Heathrow Airport

So far, consensus seems to be to keep official usage, but to convert hyphens to dashes (or vice versa). Hyphens vs. dashes is the main question. David1217 19:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think we should use endashes as opposed to hyphens, as long as there's a redirect to aid searching (for example Seattle-Tacoma International Airport would redirect to Seattle–Tacoma International Airport). In the case of when there's a slash in the name (i.e. DFW), it should be the official name. —Compdude 20:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hyphens are the correct punctuation the way I read WP:NDASH(2), since they are "compounded proper names for single entities ". I would use hyphens whenever the official name on the airport's website (or managing entity, or government aviation authority) uses anything like a hyphen (including en-dash and em-dash) in the name. For instances with any other punctuation, like slashes (e.g. Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport) or parens, I think we need to use that official punctuation. —— 21:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• That's backwards, AlanM1. It's clearly en-dashes, for same reason an en-dash used in constructions like "Ireland–UK relations" or "the US–Canadian border". I agree with keeping official usage when it uses a slash, but hyphens should be converted to en-dashes here, per WP:NDASH/MOS:DASH. It's not a compounded name for a single entity, like "Jane Smith-Giles", it's a juxtaposition of the names of two independent entities, Raleigh and Durham, for example. That the airport itself is a single entity is irrelevant; the dashed names used in these cases are compound appellations for aggregate, multi-community areas, served by the airports, so they are punctuated as such, just like the "US–Canadian border", the "Berkeley–Oakland area", etc. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 23:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• No, I don't believe it is, based on a full reading of the section. Your first example use an endash (correctly) to indicate that the named object is between the two places – the US–Canadian border is between the US and Canada.

  I don't believe the second example is correct, since it meets the criterion I cited above, and describes not the place between Berkeley and Oakland, but the area including both of them.

  Similarly, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport is composed of two people's names, and is not meant to indicate motion from Hartsfield to Jackson or something lying between them. If, instead, it had an endash, that would imply that it is an airport for flying between a place named Hartsfield and a place named Jackson only, much like a Los Angeles–San Diego flight correctly uses an endash. —— 18:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• The fact is that en-dashes/hyphens (I'm not going to get into which one is correct), slashes and spaces are all used by different airports in their own names:
  • Seattle-Tacoma International Airport
  • Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport
  • Leeds Bradford International Airport, Toronto Pearson International Airport

Consequently, it will never be possible to enforce a uniform standard. --RFBailey (talk) 04:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm suggesting we leave them as they are named, except that any dash-like character should be a hyphen. The slashes aren't ideal, but they do work. —— 18:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Is there any sort of naming standard specifically for French airports? Most of them seem to be of the form (place &ndash airport name) e.g. Ajaccio – Napoléon Bonaparte Airport, but some omit the spaces (Castres–Mazamet Airport, quite a few use an unspaced hyphen (Valenciennes-Denain Airport), and several use neither (Brest Bretagne Airport). Colonies Chris (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • French AIP doesn't use any dash or hyphen, but shows the city in bold and the "name" in normal letters (like in "Ajaccio Napoléon Bonaparte" or "Valenciennes Denain" Slasher-fun (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
    • On the basis of a quick Google check, it seems Misplaced Pages is pretty much alone in separating the location and airport name with anything other than a space. However, where the hyphen/ndash links more than one location an airport serves (as with Castres–Mazamet Airport), the hyphen or ndash is more widely used. That makes sense to me, and would be in line with examples such as Seattle–Tacoma International Airport. There's a fairly subtle distinction, I think, between airports that serve more than one location, as with Castres–Mazamet, which would be hyphenated or ndashed, and airports which serve one location but are located in another, such as Toulon-Hyères Airport, which probably should have the hyphen replaced by a space. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• I would oppose rigorous standardisation on some internal rule; we should put more weight on how sources in the outside world spell & punctuate names. As an encyclopædia we should be more descriptive than prescriptive. However, the hyphen/dash distinction is no big deal to me (and there's much confusion in the outside world) so I'm happy to defer to the MOS on that point. bobrayner (talk) 14:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm alittle late but hold the phone. We should not standardize anything. We should be going with what the airport goes by. Go to the airport website, for example you will see DFW goes with the forward slash but SEA goes with a Dash (or hyphen, can't tell). We should be going by the airport not by what wikipedia wants. Kairportflier (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

And one more question: should a hyphen or en dash be used for airports that go - or vice versa, like Montréal-Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport and Lambert-St. Louis International Airport? David1217 21:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• If sources show an overwhelming preference for one or the other (hyphen or en dash or some other small horizontal line) then go with what sources say. If there's no overwhelming preference in sources, I'm happy to go along with whatever punctuation is recommended for such cases by the small-horizontal-line experts who have written and refined the MOS. bobrayner (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• I read the MOS to say that a hyphen is appropriate, as it is two proper names compounded to describe a single entity. —— 18:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

There's been no comments for the last four days, so unless someone objects, I'll open an RM seeking to change the hyphens to dashes (since there hasn't been any real consensus here). David1217 03:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I've no objection in general to changing from hyphens to dashes, but in certain cases like one I mentioned above, Toulon-Hyères Airport, it should either retain the hyphen or (preferably) be replaced by a space, but definitely not changed to a dash. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I object for reasons cited above. Hyphens are, in almost all circumstances, the correct punctuation here. —— 18:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Allowable sources?

Specifically with regard to the "Carriers and Destinations" sections of airport articles, what sources can legally be cited? Is there a problem with getting flight data from sites that aggregate schedules from individual airlines and reservation systems? Even Google provides an (un-sourced) list when you give it flights XXX YYY with two airport codes. Or should we stick to the timetables/flight schedules published by individual carriers? At what point are we violating copyright?

If copyright is not an issue, is there a site that provides what we need – accurate lists of direct flights to/from a given airport? I know about flightstats.com, which will give you today's flights, but no history, and so is a poor choice for the non-daily flights common to most of the world. —— 19:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

My preference is to use news articles regarding the beginning/ending of service. Failing that, a press release. I've seen some people make edits to add or remove destinations with an edit summary along the lines of "per UA schedules" which I'm not fond of because it's hard to verify. As is poking around the airline web sites' online schedules, which I'll sometimes do to verify an unsourced change. Frequently airlineroute.net has become popular, but I don't think we can consider them a reliable source, as they state right at the bottom that they don't warrant that the information is complete or accurate. Posts on discussion forums like airliners.net that claim a change is being made, even if it states its per GDS schedules or something, can't be used. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a press release would be ideal. But I would see no problem with using the carriers' official website. After all, there is no big problem of needing secondary sources, as such information would be hard to make sound NPOV in any way... --Wingtipvorte PTT ∅ 21:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Physical Addresses in infobox

I know that some US airport pages but I don't know which have the airport's physical address listed for the location instead of the city/town the airport is located in the infobox. I was wondering if it is necessary to include it. Snoozlepet (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I really can't see how that is encyclopaedic for the most part. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree, it's more encyclopedic to have the name of the city/ town that the airport is located in. Listing the street address isn't helpful for identifying the airport's location if you live on the other side of the world. —Compdude 00:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree. An airport is bound to have multiple street addresses because of the numerous elements (passenger, cargo, hangars, etc.) surrounding the runway complex. HkCaGu (talk) 01:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between the location and the address. The two are not always the same and some editors confuse the two. In the infobox it specifically calls out location and not address. So addresses can be removed in my opinion. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

In the infobox template documentation, I mentioned that you aren't supposed to put the street address in the location field. That will hopefully clear things up in the future. —Compdude 21:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Focus Cities on pages

Is there any way we can add a focus city section in the info box of an airport page similar to the Hub section because it is important and when it comes to Southwest, this info has not been able to be in the info box. Thanks for the responses! Kairportflier (talk) 01:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Same thing, some airlines (especially low-cost airlines) don't have a hub system, but still have airport where crew are based; this is for now mentionned as hub airports. Slasher-fun (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not at all the same thing and we should have a way to differentiate them as we do on airline pages. Kairportflier (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

By "same thing" I only meant "same kind of issue" :) Both should be separate from the "hub for" list in the infobox. Slasher-fun (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

My position hasn't changed on this one. Focus Cities and Hubs together bloats the infobox, and adding Focus Cities would lead to pointless edit wars, especially with Airlines that don't use a hub and spoke system and only use "unofficial" focus cities. Hubs and Bases are enough. Sb617 (Talk) 01:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Sb617, Hubs and Bases are not it though, if you do hubs and bases why don't you do focus cities. The best example is Southwest. You cant have an edit war about that nor can you dispute it, it has been said many times they are focus cities so to not put it is to leave vital info out of the info box. Kairportflier (talk) 05:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I've done a search through google on Southwest.com typing in "site:southwest.com and "focus cities"", and they don't point to any official sources of Southwest officially mentioning "Focus Cities". If anyone has a source, I'd be happy to look at it if it is pointed out in reply. The Southwest financial reports to my knowledge just report their "largest cities", and the general consensus if I recall correctly (someone may able to point me to the archived discussion otherwise) was to use the "largest" cities served as Southwest's Focus Cities. So technically Southwest doesn't officially call them "focus cities", although technically they are and therefore they were included through a past discussion on Misplaced Pages.

So pretty much my stance hasn't changed in this case. If people really want to mention "Focus Cities" on the Airport articles, mentioning them in the opening paragraphs is sufficient enough. No need to bloat the infobox further, let alone have pointless edit wars over focus cities (especially from hub orientated airlines that don't use focus cities at all). Sb617 (Talk) 09:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with making a focus city for: Foo Airlines field in the infobox. I'm fine with it, and I don't see why it would increase "pointless edit wars." It doesn't happen much on airline pages, so why would it happen more here? —Compdude 20:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I think that the "Focus City for" in the infobox is fine just as long as there is a source saying that an airline does operate focus cities at those airports. Snoozlepet (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

So it looks like all of the objections mentioned have been answered, do we have any other objections or can we go ahead with this. Kairportflier (talk) 02:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Update

Update: We have lift off! Now you can add focus cities! I did the first one at BWI and will be updating other airports now. Have a good day! Kairportflier (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Seasonal routes: add summer/winter?

In many cases, summer seasonal and winter seasonal flights are mixed into the Seasonal: section. I've seen some cases where there are two lists, a Summer seasonal: and a Winter seasonal:, I think this practice should be used to clarify the seasonal routes list. What do you think? Slasher-fun (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Using Summer and Winter can be confusing as seasons differ around the world (or should that be up and down the world). MilborneOne (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with MillborneOne, what season does one tag flights in December-January between e.g. Australia and Japan, or France and South Africa? It's better to use actual start and end dates or at least months. Roger (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

True, didn't see that issue. But we cannot specify start and end month for each seasonal route either... Maybe that information should be provided depending on the airport hemisphere? A LHR-JNB between October and March would be "winter seasonal" on LHR article and "summer seasonal" on JNB article. Slasher-fun (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

(ecx2)Are all seasonal routes really by season and are they only for the summer and winter? Don't some airlines offer special service for 'annual' religious festivals and gatherings? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Summer season in timetables goes (in northern hemisphere) between the last weekend of March and the last weekend of October (and the opposite for winter), it's not the real 3 months summer and winter seasons. For example, a flight between May and September is considered as (north) summer seasonal. The special flights for religious/etc. reasons are mostly charter flights or extra flights on an existing route, I don't see much airlines opening a regular new route just for a few flights a year. Slasher-fun (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this is getting to detailed and is simply not needed. I say keep it the same. Kairportflier (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The same as what? Roger (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

My bad, I think we should keep it the same as what it currently is, put all the seasonals in one seasonal. Kairportflier (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Removal of wikilinks by User:Lzdimitar

Lzdimitar has been repeatedly asked not to remove wikilinks from destination tables. However, s/he continues to do so: Astana International Airport, Minsk International Airport, Narimanovo Airport, Tashkent International Airport, Ulan-Ude Airport and Vitoria Airport. However, in this more recent edit to Barcelona-El Prat Airport, s/he correctly adds a wikilinked destination to the table. Is there hope this editor is now following project guidelines? --Chaswmsday (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

A block will educate the user. I already warned him/her about the same issue not so long ago.--Jetstreamer  11:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I've come across this editor before: last time,, they were removing years from start/end dates, after we'd agreed they should be included. However, a block is not warranted: an editor can't be blocked simply for not following a WikiProject's editorial guideline, unless there's a violation of the three-revert rule, which doesn't appear to be the case here. --RFBailey (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, nobody is required to follow guidelines of a WikiProject. The only firm rules on Misplaced Pages are the five pillars, as we all know. —Compdude 18:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you. If I wouldn't, I'd wonder why are we dropping tons of lines at WP:AIRLINES and here —sometimes involving heated discussions— if we will finally let everyone to do their own? Furthermore, I'd ask what are guidelines for? Last Tuesday, it took me three hours to turn the destinations table in Ethiopian Airlines destinations to the new proposed format. Are you suggesting that anyone can come and undo my edits just because s(he) doesn't like the new format? --Jetstreamer  21:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, we want everyone to follow the guidelines, but they are not required to. The guidelines point out what the project consensus is, and most people will follow them if you just point it out to them. —Compdude 22:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If people refuse to follow them, and violate the 3-revert-rule to make their point, then they could get blocked. —Compdude 22:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that this user shouldn't be following the guidelines, or that the guidelines can't be used as a reason to revert this users edits, just that we can't go around demanding that the user be blocked for not following them. In any situation, the purpose of a block is not to "educate" a user. --RFBailey (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It is after deliberately going against them, even after being warned many times.--Jetstreamer  23:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

At what point does editing against consensus become vandalism? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Then, what are guidelines for? Separately, can you please tell me as an admin the reason why another admin blocked the user this time? Disruptive editing was argued.--Jetstreamer  00:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I can not explain why another editor or admin does something. Guidelines are in place to help everyone build a better encyclopedia with more effort spent in doing actual work rather then arguing points over and over. Blocking an editor is a stern sanction. I have blocked quickly in some cases, and it others only after a full set of warnings. Why? Judgement about what the issue is and the extent of the problem. Where all of these right? I don't know. The guidelines help everyone make the a more correct judgements. Are we perfect? Probably not. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Jetstreamer, you would have to ask the admin concerned as to why they made that decision, although with it being several months ago they may not remember. The grounds given were disruptive editing. --RFBailey (talk) 03:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Just re-wikilinked destinations in Sofia Airport. I would argue that Lzdimitar is engaged in disruptive editing. While the changes to WP:AVIMOS and WP:WikiProject Airports/page content were deliberately made optional by consensus, that does not give an editor license to disruptively revert edits made per that consensus, with no explanation given for the revert, as called for in Help:Edit summary. I invite Lzdimitar to reply here. --Chaswmsday (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

By repeatedly removing links and not explaining why, one could say that he is disrupting wikipedia to make a point, and that would be a reason to block. —Compdude 20:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the user hasn't made any edits at all for the last five days, so no action is needed for now. If the disruptive behaviour resumes, then something may need to be done. --RFBailey (talk) 23:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

"Empty" comments in destination tables

I believe some of you ran into this today. A well-intentioned editor removed many of the empty comment lines some of us have been using to separate airline rows in the destination tables.

I've copied this from my & the other editor's talk pages:

Magioladitis, please stop removing empty comments from airport articles; they are deliberate, as they GREATLY ease editing of the destination tables. Thanks. --Chaswmsday (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hm.... do you find it easier than just empty lines? Mclay1 has asked for this and in fact I also find the page cleaner. I 'll stop removing it from airports till we sort it out. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll stop for now removing comments on airports but I wonder how did that started for airport pages. Editors have asked me in the past to remove empty comments. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed all pages with the word "airport" from my list. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Empty lines also change the layout of the table. Slasher-fun (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the change, Magioladitis. I was just about to say what Slasher-fun did. I believe I started adding empty comments to airport articles and everyone else picked up on it. I was afraid of having a non-empty comment, since that would just add to the existing density of text in these tables. --Chaswmsday (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

After reverting these changes, I made a change at Dayton International Airport by adding a hyphen to the comments. Would this make them "non-empty" enough to avoid a future editor or bot? Thoughts? Thanks.--Chaswmsday (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The empty comments do help in visually separating one airline from another. Since these tables are frequently updated it is important to make editing as simple as possible. There's nothing wrong with them. —Compdude 18:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Changed extra hyphen to + sign w/o spaces. IMO, slightly easier to figure out w/o counting hyphens but still, I hope, non-empty. --Chaswmsday (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Airport codes in boldface

See Template talk:Airport codes#Airport codes in boldface. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Royal Thai Air Force Bases

Some editors are questioning the naming policy after articles on RTAFB Don Muang, RTAFB Korat]], RTAFB Udorn and RTAFB Ubon were re-named to this style which is similar to other military airport articles (such as RAF stations) where the country is indicated in the title (unlike Eielson Air Force Base]]. Can an administrator make a decision. Previous discussion can be found at User talk:Petebutt#our renaming of Thai Air Force base articles Petebutt (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The actual format used is immaterial in truth as just about every iteration is covered by a re-direct and search engines will pick up the article whatever he title. No need to panic about loss of accessibility etc.Petebutt (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That is what #redirects are used for. The abbreviation is not the official name of the base, such as Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. There is a #redirect for Wright-Patterson AFB. Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Note: A move request has been opened at Talk:RTAFB Don Muang#Requested move. --115.67.34.74 (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Certainly the long version of the name looks wrong do we have a reliable reference to what the RTAF actually call these bases in English? MilborneOne (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that is what they were before they were renamed. Bwmoll3 (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to wonder, what is the regular name used for these locations?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Airports RM

Hello. There is currently an RM at Talk:Seattle–Tacoma International Airport on whether to use hyphens or dashes in airport names. You may be interested. Thanks, David1217 16:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Project-Class aviation pages
• Project-Class airport pages
• WikiProject Airports articles
• WikiProject Aviation articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment