Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines/Destinations archive

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines
(Redirected from Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/Destinations)
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Compdude123 in topic Discussion from style guide talk page moved here


Use this project page for discussion of issues with listing destinations in airline articles.

See category:Airline destinations

Regional airline destinations

Where should regional airline destinations be listed?

  • Under the name the service is under United Express as an example
  • Under the airline actually flying to the city SkyWest as an example
  • Both

Vegaswikian

Code shares

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Should these be listed in destinations? They are not really destinations that the airline flies to. With code shares, not all flights are available on the airline you are code sharing with so listing provides some level of information. I guess the answer is based on what purpose is served by these lists, if it is a travel guide then they probably should be kept, if it is to document were an airline flies then they should be dropped. Vegaswikian 06:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

If they must be listed, add them in a seperate section. In the meantime, may I remind, that Category:Airline destinations is not a travel guide, and should not be limited as such.--Huaiwei 10:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Order of continents

Latest comment: 18 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

Most airline destination lists have continents listed in alphabetical order, and a few have them in geographical order from west to east (although I like the idea of starting with the airline's home continent). I think the second makes more sense; does anyone have any comments on this? Dbinder 22:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • The second does make more sense. I am still planning to build a master list of all destinations so that everything is listed the same. For example the islands off the US south east coast are not always listed the same. Using a common list fixes problems like that. But having this list and saying move the home continent to the top, but keep everything else in the same order, would be easy for any editor to do. My vote now would likely be that listing the home continent first should be optional. Vegaswikian 02:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I personally do not see how the second option should make any more sense, for an alphabatical listing helps prevent POV issues, and promotes greater content synergy and standardisation. This is particularly true in multi-airline lists, such as in Oneworld destinations, Skyteam destinations and Star Alliance destinations. In [1], Dbinder appears to take the opinion that North America should always come first because the founding members of these alliances are either from NA or Europe. So why NA, and not Europe? Do wikipedians need to expend time and effort arguing over continent orders?--Huaiwei 10:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
    • You created an argument by making this personal. I think putting them in geographical order makes sense - otherwise Australia and New Zealand (Oceania) come between North and South America, and order of regions in Asia is jumbled (Central, East, South, Southeast, Southwest). If you want Europe to be listed first for the alliance destinations, then go ahead and change it. The main reason I had North America first instead of Europe was to start from the West and go east. Dbinder 11:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
      • You created a personal argument by bringing it to my talkpage. So what if Oceania comes between the two Americas? Since when are the order of regions in Asia "jumbled", when they, too, are alphabetically listed? In fact, the orderly manner in which Asian entries are represented clearly is a cut over the confusions over how the Americas are being presented. This is not so much an issue of whethere I want Europe to be listed or not. I am demanding to know why you would start from the West and go East, since you statement that NA and European airlines being "pioneers" in global alliances dosent quite explain the preference of one continent over another? Colonialism version 2.0, or something else?--Huaiwei 12:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Anyway, North America is somewhat screwed up; I've seen several versions. Some have the US, Canada, and Mexico as separate sections, some have them together. Some have Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands under the US, others have them under the Caribbean. On a related note, Europe has the same issue with the Canary Islands and Azores under Western Europe or North Africa. It makes more sense to have territories where they are geographically located (if the US Virgin Islands should be listed under the US, then shouldn't the British Virgin Islands be listed under Western Europe, and even more extreme - New Caledonia should be under Western Europe, since that's owned by France. As for the order of continents, I think listing them geographically from northwest to southeast with the airline's home continent first makes sense, since it will read more like a textual map of the destinations. Dbinder 12:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I have created Airline destinations and I'm merging in Star Alliance destinations now. I have only completed Canada. I have not addressed issues like the Virgin Islands yet, but make suggestions here or on the talk page for the article. I do plan on expanding to heading level all of the countries. I don't know why this was not done in the past. Vegaswikian 01:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Except for North American carriers, I can understand the reasoning behind combining the US, Canada, and Mexico into one subheading. Dbinder 13:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Also, as has already been done for the Canada, the US, Mexico, Brazil, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand, countries with a large number of airports should be subdivided by region or state. I'm going to work on Japan, but I think PRC, Russian Federation, France, etc. should also be done. Dbinder 13:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I was looking at doing more. My gut says that if you do one country at a heading then you need to do all for that region. Also by floating the TOC to the right, I think it makes the length of the TOC less of an issue since you can see the text along with the TOC. The merges are going slowly as it takes time. I also noticed a lot of red links for airports. The USVI ones were red and since I knew they existed, I checked. The names were wrong in the articles I used to create the list. So once the list is 'completed', we can use it to fix a lot of broken links in other articles. Vegaswikian 18:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I guess that a decision will need to be made about if and when to deviate from the standard. In an encylopedia, keeping with the standard improves the perception of quality. Vegaswikian 18:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, a user has been moving the Canary Islands from North Africa into Spain. I don't feel like starting an edit war over it, but geographically they're in North Africa. Care to comment? The discussion is on the Airline destinations talk page. Dbinder 00:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggested standard for listing hubs and season service

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In looking at several lists, I like the ones that list Hubs, and by extension focus cities, in bold. I think we could also list Seasonal for seasonal services in italics. Avoids the format issues as these can then be simply added after the airport. How does this sound? Vegaswikian 00:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Destination articles being considered for deletion

Maps

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I have been creating destination maps, namely for easyJet destinations and Germanwings destinations. Before this, the article that had such a map was Ryanair destinations. Does anyone think this is a good/bad idea to produce more? Callumm 17:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone say update nightmare? Destinations are changing all of the time. How many editors are inclined, or even know how, to update these maps? While a nice idea, I don't see them as being practical. Also, don't add sizes to thumbnails since they override use settings for the display size. Vegaswikian 19:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I see your point. I am able to do updates as and when they're needed, and Kelisi is also able to do it (he created the Ryanair map). I keep up to date on aviation news, so I generally know when a new route is announced and can update the maps. There has been a Ryanair destination map for a long time now on Wikipedia, and as far as I could see was the only one of its kind on Wikipedia. Would it make sense to maybe just have them for the major airlines? I certainly feel that it adds to the articles. Callumm 08:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Most of the larger airlines already have these on their sites. So why do we need to duplicate their work? Also many of these are interactive so you can also see where they fly to from each city. This is not a travel guide. Vegaswikian 08:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Frequencies

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

We should add frequencies after the destination Airport, what do you mean? Dagadt (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I strongly oppose including frequencies (how often service is offered between two locations). They don't really add encyclopedic material to the article. They are more interesting on a travel site. Without planes being identified, you don't know the actual capacity between the two points. Also remember that airlines commonly substitute aircraft at hubs in some cases on a regular basis. Also, frequency from hubs is a misnomer in how it would be used here. While we don't list destinations without direct service, if you are covering frequencies then you need to add in the non direct service since it is part of the total capacity picture between two points. So in the end there are many reasons to not included this information. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Flags

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Is it correct to put the flags icons of the countries in the list?? e.g.Mexicana destinationsJibco (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

  • This has been discussed in many places and the simple answer is no. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Has it though? As I have read there is no true way to present a destination page and it is under discussion, so flags should be allowed until a true way to present destinations has been decided. Also note how helpful they are to show a country, and how it lightens up a boring page. Regards, Zaps93 (talk) 10:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
      • NO flags please! A lot of people have weighed in on this in a number of discussions over the past year and overwhelmingly favoured the "flag ban". Besides, this is abput presenting encyclopaedic information, in a clear and concise manner. It's not about prettiness or excitement (whatever that means to each of us individually).

Terminated/Former Destinations

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

I think these sections should be deleted from airline destination pages, but I don't want to start this without a word from somebody else. What's the consensus? Deus Caritas Est (talk) 22:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find that there is consensus to keep these with citations. Personally I would like to see these in table form that would included the start and end dates of service. This would allow listing the city multiple times which is is many ways a notable fact. I believe that you will find some previous discussions in one of the archives for this page or the main page.Vegaswikian (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree these should be removed, more so because many destinations are not referenced, even if they have been served, one needs to know for sure that its accurate information, including launch and suspension dates which are lacking.116.71.34.12 (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It strikes me that the style for terminated destinations seems to have developed to leave these points as text, not links to the representative page (I haven't found anything official, though I may have missed it). In any case, this seems an unnecessary distinction - the list is already in a separate section in all of the pages that I know of (and should be in any that aren't set up as such). If someone wants to click through from a list of destinations to the terminated destination, either the city or the airport, they ought to be able to do so without going back to the search bar to look it up. --DMG413 (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Format

Due to there not being an agreed terminated destinations format, I would propose two formats and we'll have a vote over the best one?

Example 1:

Terminated destinations in Asia

Terminated destinations in East Asia
Terminated destinations in Southeast Asia
Terminated destinations in South Asia

Example 2:

Africa
  • East Africa
    • Seychelles - Mahe
    • Tanzania - Arusha
  • North Africa
    • Algeria - Hassi Messaoud
    • Egypt - Alexandria, Luxor
    • Morocco - Agadir, Casablanca, Fez, Marrakech, Rabat, Tangier
    • Sudan - Khartoum
  • Southern Africa
    • Botswana - Gaborone
    • Malawi - Blantyre, Lilongwe

I personally think Example 1, due to many reason, one of which is the format is much nicer and easer to read, there are links to the articles, e.g if the airline once served Sao Paulo there is no link on the page. Example 1 is my favoured choice! Your opinions? Zaps93 (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Not in favour of either. There really is no need to put any unnecessary emphasis on terminated destinations... They're gone. Nice bit of history, but little else. I'm all for retaining what the BA list has evolved to: Continent on one line, followed on subsequent lines by country and all terms of that country on the same line. And no links either please.
To clarify: I'm for example 2, but without the regional hierarchy (North Africa, Southern Africa etc). Jasepl (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
They may be gone, that is the point, they should be shown as it is history about the airlines destinations, and links as I said take you to places that aren't already mentioned in the article. Zaps93 (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
        • there is no need for the detailes for past destinations!! it is not relavant info & only saying it was flown is enough!

Destinations format

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

After a number of near edit wars on the format to be used for destination lists, I have invited those involved to bring their ideas here. The only current standard is similar to British Airways destinations for stand alone article. It has been pointed out that may not be suitable for main articles. Perhaps a table based format like used on Airports may be suitable. But appreciate if anybody has any ideas that can be discussed. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Standard format layout for destinations in a main article destinations section, ruins the article layout and presentation. For main article based destinations list there should only be these formats:
  • Domestic and International
    with cities and airports only
    or
    Continents
    with cities and airports only
    or
    Regions (like North Africa and Central Asia etc.)
    with cities and airports only.


116.71.54.240 (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I propose a destination list for airline pages where there is only 1-20 destinations (see Air Southwest), then if there is 20+ destinations (including terminated) a seperate destinations page (see Delta Air Lines destinations, Iraqi Airways destinations, etc). This is a neat and tidy ways of presenting the data, and as for a list in a seperate article a I believe presenting it these ways would be best...
  • Country
    • City (airport)

or

  • Country
    • City - Airport

Also as this is a discussion for how to present destinations, I believe flags should be discussed as they tend to be an issue regarding flags. My view on flags are for flags, mainly because it helps a person scan a country in large lists and it also lightens up a page, I see no harm in flags. That is my view on destinations. Regards. Zaps93 (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Flags create confusion and clutter, I will agree though that flags look good in table format lists only.116.71.60.227 (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Country with City - Airport would be fine with me. By the way why are country names going bold in standard format airline destinations article lists, an editor Dravid.Raul is going about doing this and Miliborne you did too for Air Arabia, I thought this wanst part of Wiki.116.71.34.12 (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)116.71.34.12 (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I just copied the BA format - agree it does look peculiar - perhaps we need to look at that. MilborneOne (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that current flydubai format is fine, you are limited to 10 destinations so adding continents and sub-continents is not really any help. The general consensus has been that flags are not required.

Egypt
Jordan
Lebanon
Syria
United Arab Emirates

I would also suggest that stand-alone articles should be the same (not the same as British Airways) with the continent and sub-continent areas added

Asia

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Southwest Asia

United Arab Emirates

Any comments on these. MilborneOne (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree along sense of some parts, but the whole 'no continents' things seems very stupid, no offense! Of course British Airways destinations is very good example of a destinations page, why? because it has a large variety of destinations across the globe and they are listed by continents they're in which is good because country after country is not really helpful, they need subsections. Thanks! Zaps93 (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Milborne regions do look better than continents, so yes.116.71.32.219 (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The reason I suggested no continents is because with only ten entries it would enlarge the entry, but I am open to others suggestions. MilborneOne (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I hadnt noticed you added continent as well which is not appropraite for the article, personally I still prefer Regions' with City - Airport layout, if a country has more than five cities served by the airline or is the home base, then it should be listed by country name see Oman Air, this makes it concise and gives a nice look to layout of article.116.71.50.203 (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks a bit daft without the country name which is far more important than the regions which can be confusing for some readers, south west asia for example is not normal english usage to most readers. MilborneOne (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I wouldnt label it daft, infact people who cant make out where south west asia is are daft, region could be added as Southwest Asia so people can click and find out where its located isnt that the idea behind wiki? besides the region wise layout looks more pleasing or smarter appearence wise, lets not forget originally destinations at wiki were only listed as domestic and international with just city names e.g International scheduled destinations: Dubai, Mumbai, Sydney, Washington etc.115.42.65.139 (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Cyprus, Turkey, Egypt, Russia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia where do they go?

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Are they European or Asian, most are listed in Southwest Asia, which part of Russia is Asian which is European? where does Europe stop and Asia begin?

Should Egypt be listed in Asia if an airline only serves sharm el sheikh, should Turkey and Russia be listed in Asia if an airline serves destinations only on their Asian side? where should countries be listed if an airline serves all of their African, Asian and European cities, should they be listed in that continent on which side they serve the most cities.116.71.48.145 (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion from style guide talk page moved here

Latest comment: 12 years ago28 comments16 people in discussion

The following was moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Airlines): (Some of it may be irrelevant as it is fairly old)

This page needs to be reconsidered

It appears that only three editors have contributed to this page in its entire history and no one before me has bothered to discuss this page. Yet, MilborneOne is attempting to use this page as a content restriction for any Wikipedia airline page. Before the page can be viewed as representing consensus, it needs much more involvement from other editors. ShondaLear (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Why? Did you look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines which is the main discussion page for the project? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I've actually posted there! There's obviously a difference between the project discussion page, where consensus may or may not have been reached, and this page, which purportedly is a synthesis maintained by only three editors. I would not be concerned at all with this page if MilborneOne weren't attempting to use it to prevent and regulate edits of airline pages. ShondaLear (talk) 05:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
As I recall at one time this information was on the main page but it was split out when the tabbed format was implemented. I suspect that the comment at creation did not reflect that the content was moved. This is required by the GFDL. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I consider this page to generally be the result of consensus at the main WikiProject talk page. More people give their input there, but only a few editors end up taking the time to come over here and update. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

In reality any discussion related to this sub page is made on the main wp talk page/wangi (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Prices

Prices should be listed as something not to do. Wikipedia is not a price guide Irunongames • play 22:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Destination articles

The project guideline states: "Once an airline has more then 10 destinations, especially international ones, they could be listed in a stand alone article". The consensus reached by the wider community at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montenegro Airlines destinations is that this is not always appropriate. In light of that AfD, this section should be reconsidered. I42 (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about the wider community only a small number of editors made comment at the AfD and the guideline says could be listed, it is not a mandatory requirement just a guide to project editors. But if anybody has any suggestions then that could be discussed. MilborneOne (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Put in a statement referring list guidelines to appropriate Wiki guidelines for lists. ʘ alaney2k • talkʘ 16:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue was again raised at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Porter_Airlines_destinations and the closing admin agreed that the Airlines guideline had no standing compared to policy:

The result was delete. Guidelines are just that and local wikiprojects do not get to overrule project consensus. Destinations pages are for convienience when the main article is getting too big but the consensus here is that this hasnt reached thzt point yet. No convincing case for keeping this as a standalone has been made that overpowers arguments based on gng and WP:NOT. Therefore this falls for deletion as there is no need to mege material back. Note that recreation is specifically permitted when the main article expands beyond acdetpable length (we have a MOS on that) or where the number of destinations expands to the point that they overpower the article.

I think the project guideline needs serious review in light of the above, and the other articles which exist in a very similar state to the one deleted need examining.

My rationale for deletion was the WP:NOTDIRECTORY policy, but here the admin did not explicitly state that this was the policy in question, so this point is less clear. I see the list of airports as no different from any other directory of, eg, shops. A list of airports served by a particular airline is no different from a list of shops which sell a particular product - a yellow pages directory. On that basis, airline destination lists do not belong at all, as part of an article or independenly. Encyclopedic discussion about the airline may obviously include the destinations, but not as a simple list. But to determine consensus on this point I will raise this at WP:NOTDIRECTORY.

I42 (talk) 10:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

I would like to propose that in destination articles the domestic destinations of an airline be separated from its regional destinations (other countries in same continent). The exception is if its domestic destinations are only the start/end points for international flights and it does not operate purely domestic routes - Singapore Airlines destinations and Emirates destinations are good examples of such exclusively international airlines. Roger (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Dont have a big problem but you would need it to be split as domestic and international. See what others think. MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean here. Could you explain? Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Take a look at [2] Don't you remember reverting it? "Domestic" is a main heading - separate from "Regional". Roger (talk) 13:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Fleet Table Colours

Hello all. I like to edit fleet tables to bring them up to expectations but recently there has been problems regarding table colours. I have a proposition that is already in place for just one airline alliance.

  • Specific colours for each airline alliance: (#9592C6 - already in use for Oneworld) e.g. a lightblue type colour for SkyTeam, dark colours for Star Alliance to resemble the alliance colours.
  • Colurs that match the airline identity as long as they are readable.

Your opinions? Zaps93 (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. No one has responded here in several months(!), but using the alliance colors seems to be too obscure/not relevant for most readers, and probably more difficult to 'police'. The color you name isn't even used on the Oneworld article tables... Since you recorded your comments, the practice of using the airline colors seems to have been adopted - see Monarch Airlines and easyJet - for all tables. I support this, as it makes the article seem more authoritative, and if needed the 'right' color can usually be established from the company website. Well done for raising the issue. Carbonix (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Should this page be redirected?

I think maybe this talk page should be redirected to the main project's talk page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines. Such a redirect will garner more comments on guideline-related issues, which can't be a bad thing. Mlm42 (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Destination list

Did we have a project consensus to change the once an airline has 10 destinations bit? MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I changed that based on the article that got deleted with more than 10 destinations. That tells me, yes, Wikipedia consensus says we should change this page.. Wikipedia consensus overrules WikiProject consensus. Mlm42 (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I dont disagree with the sentiment in the AfD but it still has to be agreed by the project. I would argue that the result of one AfD discussion should be discussed by the project but cant really overule it. MilborneOne (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I guess.. but the wording I changed it to, simply replaced "10" with "enough", to allow more flexibility. Was there a consensus on 10 destinations anyway? It seems a bit arbitrary; it struck me as the number on which one editor decided one day. But yes, if you like, we could discuss it at a project wide level. In my opinion, there are a lot of items in this guideline which could do with some discussion. Mlm42 (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I dont have a problem with any or all of them being raised for discussion, but perhaps not all on the same day! MilborneOne (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Destination Page

Why does the policy allow two different types of lists (world-based vs. table format) for airline destinations? Airlines and destinations can only be listed in one format on the airport pages, so why can destinations be listed in two ways on the destination pages? I find the table formats to be messy (look at Air Canada destinations), half the list is terminated destinations, and one column (provinces) is basically blank. I think it should be policy to have one format. Thankyoubaby (talk) 10:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

List of Braathens destinations and List of Dragonair destinations made Featured List status using the list format. After some discussions over time (which is likely in the archives), and there wasn't a clear consensus on sticking to one format, it was agreed upon that either the table or list formats can be used. Sb617 (Talk) 12:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
And clearly the list format works for those pages, they look visually appealing. But can you say the same for the Air Canada one? Thankyoubaby (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

End Copy-paste —Compdude123 (talk | contribs) 18:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines/Destinations_archive&oldid=506439931"