Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports

ARP

For some strange reason the deletion discussion for Template:ARP is asking that the template should not be discussed for deletion but rather a consensus gained that we dont need it first. Not something I have seen before but I would propose per my nomination (Provides a link to operational reports from airport users which is not an encyclopedic subject and without a template would not be added to the article as it adds no value to the article.) that the template is not used on airport articles, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

After being told that TfD was not the right place to discuss deletion of a template and I removed the template during the discussion they have undeleted the template and added the entry back to the airport articles. I can assume that as nobody has commented here that WP:SILENCE applies and the template can be removed from airport articles but just to check I will leave it a few more days before removing them again unless anybody supports keeping it, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 09:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

References for destination

Just to note the project guideline for page content included "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." - please note that this is not an instruction to remove any reliable references that have been added just because the flight is timetabled, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 08:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

We need to settle this issue: When should references be added to the destination tables? Certain editors have been reinstating references despite what is noted at WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT, #10. For some prior discussion on this issue, please see here. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 16:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

This is another issue that has come up in the past. We should stick with what we've been doing. If a new route is announced, you must provide a reference verifying that this info is true. When the route has begun, the reference can then be removed as you can verify it's correct anywhere online. Also, when the route is ending, a reference needs to be provided (as it is new information). Two exceptions are cargo flights and charter flights as it is much harder to find information on these flights online, so a source should be added next to the route and should NOT be removed. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I would personally give it 2 to 3 weeks after the launch date (especially recently launched services) for the service to really kick in. If it is maintained, then it can be removed. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

There really is very little to discuss about MilborneOne's note above. He is spot on about what the Airports project and Wikipedia's core principles say. These must be adhered to and deleting valid and appropriate references are fundamentally against both.˜˜˜˜˜

I beg to differ. Andrewgprout, you are unilaterally going against consensus. If you wish to make a major change regarding all of the airport articles on Wikipedia, it is best to discuss it here before continuing your disruptive editing. I strongly urge you to explain yourself here and await others' comments. I am refraining from altering your edits in order to avoid edit warring. I see you have a history of engaging in such disputes, but I am not willing to participate in one.

Here is my viewpoint. I do not know how to get around this statement, #10 under WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT: "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." A reference for every single destination creates clutter; thus, accessibility issues. Consensus is to only include references for destinations that are slated to begin or end. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 21:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)˜

With respect - you can disagree all you want - but removing valid references from Wikipedia articles is wrong. What you have been doing is wrong and has always been wrong, MilborneOne explains it above. And I will add - if something has been referenced it was probably for a good reason - someone had challenged the entry or the entry was complex in some way - when you come along and randomly delete that reference - for the absolute non reason that it creates clutter, then that is my definition of disruptive.

Can I suggest that maybe you broaden your editing on Wikipedia to include other topics as then you will.understand how referencing works and the need for it - editing in tall narrow silos is problematic as this thread shows. The biggest problem with the tables and referencing is that the density of the information in thee tables is of questionable encyclopaedic value.Andrewgprout (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the comment of AirportUpdater above, I'd say to remove the old reference supporting the start of a new destination only after a source confirming the new flight has been added. Confirming a fact and announcing a future event are not the same thing.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Andrewgprout: It is not random deletion of references, it is abiding by consensus. If the reference was there for a particular reason, then there should have been a hidden note. My point is that, per WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, you are not engaging in consensus; instead, you are freely making edits in line with your viewpoint. And for the record, Wikipedia editors can edit whatever topic they want. You edit what you are interested in; this is not some job. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 17:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreeing with Sunnya343 & *AirportUpdater* here— as more and more routes are announced, the articles are just going to get over referenced, and then the destination tables will be cluttered with completely useless, redundant and outdated references that people won't even bother to use anyway...

I think a guideline that we really need to pay closer attention to is WP:OVERSITE, which could also help to determine how this issue can be resolved. 172.56.38.167 (talk) 05:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting WP:OVERSITE as it does not mention not having one or two references for every single claim that requires a citation but to have a lot of references for a single claim.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Can we get some more clarity on the issue because there have been some issues regarding this topic on various airport articles. Do we source current destinations or not and if there are certain exceptions, laid out clearly, what exactly are these exceptions. Also, if a route is ending (or beginning for that matter) and there is no source besides the airline's schedule, do we put a "citation need" alert next to it or is the airline schedule enough of a source? Obviously if there is a source, that's best but sometimes there simply is no other source. Thanks for the clarity. Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 00:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

If there are no sources for start/end dates the entry should not be added. Acting otherwise is a violation to WP:VERIFY.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

So even if it's in the schedule, if we there is no source we simply pretend like it isn't actually beginning or ending? Just wanna be 100% on this. Can we use the schedule on the airline's website as a source? A great example of this is EWR-LAS on WN. It ends in January on Southwest.com but there's no other source to verify it. I will say, in my opinion, there is no better source than the airline itself but the rule should be clear so I just want some clarity on it. Thanks. Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 05:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The quick answer is yes the timetable is a valid reference for the existence of a flight so long as you provide it as a reference - however it is always better to use a secondary source as per WP:SECONDARY - and just to be absolutely clear the airline timetable is a PRIMARY (ie not preferred) source for this information. For start and finish dates the working out of all this is getting pretty close to original research - you are researching the subject yourself and coming up with a derived answer to the question rather than repeating what someone else has published. This is why such references are nearly always from the media or airline publications and not from the timetable. This at first I know seems counterintuitive but it is like that because secondary sources better ensure notability and guard against original research. Much of the contention in the above discussion rests around the questionable fit the current format and depth of the destination tables with these policies. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Decorative flag

The flag in {{Airports in the Netherlands}} and similar templates is merely decorative and should be removed per WP:ICONDECORATION. An anonymous editor keeps reverting the removal, not giving any proper arguments, but merely stating that similar templates also have flags. I hereby propose to remove the flags from this and similar aiport templates. – Editør (talk) 10:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Your proposal is supported by MOS:FLAGS.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I would agree to removing them. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and support. The category Category:Airport templates contains 176 templates of which 151 have a decorative flag. I want to be sure there is consensus about the flags before we start removing them, so I've posted a message on a couple of template talk pages. – Editør (talk) 09:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I am a bit surprised to see so much hesitation - but in a way I support reluctance to remove somebody's hard work. Still in this case there can be little doubt, given the MOS:FLAGS directive. Anyway, you certainly have my support: those flags are no more than eye-candy, adding not the slightest bit of information. Jan olieslagers (talk) 09:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Since there is consensus here supported by the Wikipedia guideline on flags, I will start removing flags from templates. – Editør (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe all flags have been removed. – Editør (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much - I owe you one! Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Nawabshah Airport

This article is being vandalised with the city being referred to as benairabad, not such name change has taken place officially at state level and cannot be recognised as such. Only district has been renamed. 139.190.175.128 (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Unreferenced content in airport tables

Lots of information in there with nothing cited, can it be removed with summary to restore with a valid reference? fan boys can add anything they like if you go lax on the reference part.139.190.175.128 (talk) 05:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

It would be incredibly difficult and impractical to cite everything in an airports airline/dest table. This information changes very frequently and it often hard to source (you can't source an airlines booking system). For the most part, there are very little errors in these, and additions by these fan boys are often quickly removed. There's enough of us watching the project that this has become a non-issue. Thanks for looking out! Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 15:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I have made an effort at times to confirm other peoples entries through searching google and airline websites and added refs if found, but the other editors never do that, they simply remove info even if its valid but unreferenced and ask you to add a refernce for it, even if they know the information is real I'm guessing they too are avgeeks so shoul be in the know of latest developments, if not why are they on an aviation related project? been on wiki too long and have observed this practice. 139.190.175.128 (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Tofutwitch11: WP:V must be followed - impractical does not enter into the argument, neither does difficult. What you are in reality suggesting by your statement is that the destination tables are not suitable in this form for inclusion into Wikipedia articles.Andrewgprout (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@139.190.175.128: the short answer is yes any unreferenced fact can be deleted, I would however suggest that if you think that something is questionable putting a tag on the entry is probably a better option. Or even better still find a valid reference for the entry. However these tables attract a reasonable amount of vandalism and without proper referencing it is hard to tell a valid piece of information from vandalism. Andrewgprout (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

As Andrewgprout suggests, I strongly support the use of references in these tables too, even when the common practice is not to use them (against WP:VERIFY, a core content policy). However, I do not encourage the mass addition of citation needed tags for unreferenced entries across all airport articles because that would fall into tag bombing and may be seen as disruptive.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jetstreamer: @Andrewgprout: Okay, then should we start adding references to every destination in the tables, should we scrap the tables, should we what? How do we reach consensus on this issue? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 19:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

We're trying to reach consensus at this very discussion, so everyone's opinion will be appreciated.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jetstreamer: @Andrewgprout: If you do not mind, I would like to shift the discussion to an organised place here. Thanks — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 22:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

List of airports in Canada

Hi! I think there might be a problem with the article "List of airports in Canda". The article says "Due to the size of the list it has been broken down into:" and then the article is blank. I left a message on the article's talk page, but I'm not sure if it will be checked soon. I just wanted to let you know about this possible problem so that it can be fixed. Jith12 (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jith12: There is a template below that statement in which the lists are divided up by name, province, etc. If you are in mobile view, I don't think you can see templates. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 15:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Need Help With 3 Small Airports In East Texas

I would appreciate it if someone from the Airports project could give me a hand in understanding where exactly to find some of the information on small airports, and to understand how that information fits in the boxes for airport pages in this project. I am working on articles for Mineola Airport, Winnsboro_Airport_(Texas) and Wood County Airport (no page yet, will be soon). However, I am more of a historian and not familiar with the technical aspects of airport. I am wondering if someone would be willing to team up with me and help edit the boxes and technical information for these articles while I handle the history aspects? I'm a total newbie to how the maps work in the boxes and also do not want to put incorrect info in the boxes, and I simply don't understand how to parse "raw" data on runways I am seeing to separate it and put it in the boxes. I do not want the data to be incorrect. Can anyone assist with these three small airports? Thanks. VinceLeibowitz (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I have done some work on aerodromes in Europe but have little idea of the situation in the USA. But AFAIK the FAA is the one universal source of information, over there? Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Some sources that you can also consult - but neither are authoritative! - are www.openstreetmap.org and wwww.ourairports.com In the case of Mineola, I observe OSM calls it "Wisener Field" which seems a better name to me - "airport" suggests a lot of infrastructure that is unlikely to be available at this rural airfield. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

References and destination tables

Issue: There has been consensus to only keep a reference in an Airline and destinations table if a destination is starting or ending. See WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT, #10. However, certain editors feel that this violates WP:V and other core Wikipedia policies regarding references. Let us try to establish consensus on this issue. Please feel free to add your own proposal below. Also, consider taking a look at WP:CONS and WP:CONSBUILD. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 22:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE - this discussion is about whether it is acceptable to delete a valid reference for a fact that has for whatever reason been included in an article IT IS NOT as most people are discussing below about whether every fact needs an explicit inline reference - no-one is suggesting that. The contention here is simple valid references are being wantonly deleted and this is not supported by either WP:AIRPORTS or Wikipedia's core principles. It is also somewhat about whether a local consensus can ignore Wikipedia core principles. Andrewgprout (talk) 04:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Andrewgprout: What is the difference? Per #10, we delete references once a route has started. At least that is how I see it. For consistency's sake, we either have references for all destinations or don't have any, right? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 06:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

What is point of having a conscensus then, the idea was to do something regarding all the unreferenced information in there, you have twisted it around to something pointless. Its ALL the unreferenced conent that needs to either be cited or removed, at best just keep airlines and not the destinations in there. 139.190.175.128 (talk) 05:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposal #1: We continue with consensus, that is, abiding by WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT, #10. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 22:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support Way too many references would be needed, creating clutter and accessibility issues. See my notes here. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 22:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. None of this would be an issue if we were to simply have a general reference to the airline's schedule next to the airlines name or in a "notes" column. We don't need a reference for each individual destination (except for the ones beginning of ending, as we already do), just a general one for each airline. oknazevad (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Oknazevad: That sounds interesting. Do you mean a reference to an airline's PDF schedule or to their online timetable that must be manually searched? Because the latter sounds like WP:OR or something (I saw this argument elsewhere). — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 23:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
    • PDF if available, manually searched if needed. I can't see how that could be considered OR, though I could see an argument for it being insufficient sourcing. oknazevad (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
      • Many airlines don't have PDF published on website and online timetable data is not always accurate. There is no need for such referencing I feel. I edit Irish airports mostly and always review schedules at beginning of each season to see if there is any changes and reference as required. I suspect many other editors do something similar. Jamie2k9 (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support Agreed. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 23:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support Current system is working adequately and changing it will over complicate things. Jamie2k9 (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support It is usually easily to check if a scheduled flight is still running by looking at the airline's timetable or booking engine. I would make an exemption though for charter flights as these can be very difficult to verify and often if the charter stops running they don't get removed, particularly at busy airports where it can be hard to keep track. The same should apply to cargo flights. VG31 02:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support The current system is perfectly fine. I think that haveing a citation for everything listed would be too complicated and make the article extremely long in terms of total bytes, which someone actually has to pay for. The other thing is where would you find sources to claim a route is legit, it would just be too hard to enforce. With the PDF schedules, it would be too hard to cite it for each airline like mentioned above because... A. users will just get lazy and not put the page numbers in the citation, which means when someone wants to look at it, they will have to spend valuable time looking for the page with the routes for that particular airport (the Delta PDF flight schedule for this month is 1603 pages long). B. As already stated not all airlines publish their timetables. - If one were to question a routes legitness, all one has to do is look at Flightaware or other similar web services and they can tell you if a route is real or not. As for beginning/ending routes, I expect to see a citation to support the claim. That isn't hard because people hear about these things in the newspapers and press releases, both of which are available online. Thanks, KDTW Flyer (talk) 02:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Note I am happy with anything that meets WP:VERIFY. Can someone point out to me where in the famous number 10 quote above it suggests that a valid reference should be deleted it most clearly says nothing of the sort? The only problem here is that some are insisting they have the right to in a wholesale fashion delete valid references because they are untidy. You simply can't follow Wikipedia's basic principles delete a reference because that fact is obvious to find in a non-referenced source. Andrewgprout (talk) 01:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Andrewgprout: I interpret as; they are saying that typically unless a route is challenged, people typically don't provide a reference because the airlines published timetable counts as a universal reference that doesn't have to be directly cited in the article. It doesn't state that that citations for running routes aren't allowed like some people think, KDTW Flyer (talk) 02:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

• Weak support Oknazevad makes a good point. However, airport destinations change so quickly that it would be unfeasible to require references for them. A more optimal long-term solution would be to do away with destinations entirely, but this would need much wider consensus. SSTflyer 03:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I support removal of table only the airlines serving an airport should remain with ref ofcourse, I have never found the destinations section of airports serving any purpose, only the airline information is of interest. some people argue wiki is not a travel guide well by listing all these destinations it certainly seems like it is, its totally unecessary and pedantic. 139.190.175.128 (talk) 05:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment We should somehow modify #10 to help end this edit war. A new daily or weekly nonstop route is usually not going to be challenged, so the reference can be removed once it starts. However, anything unusual, like multi-stops, charters, seasonals, or obscured airlines, should probably have the references kept. This should be the spirit of "verifiability". HkCaGu (talk) 06:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comments Andrewgprout. The #10 is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content#Body. I have a some concerns about the way this is presented. Posting this here is preaching to the choir. This probably should have be done as a request for comment because of Wikipedia:Consensus#Level of consensus. Currently, as was pointed out above, any non referenced destination can be removed as it may not be obvious to the reader that the routes are to be referenced by clicking on the airline article and seeing if there is a reference there. If somebody did want to remove all unreferenced destinations in Heathrow Airport it would leave a total of 17 destinations. All because someone challenged it. One possible work around is to add something like <ref>References for destinations that are not given in the table may be found in the airline's published timetable.</ref> to the {{Airport destination list}}. By the way Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content is only an essay and not a guideline. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I see nobody pointing at WP:NOTRAVEL. We don't need to have tables updated to the latest second. There's no problem if there are articles with a wrong number of destinations or airlines not serving the airport. Guidelines or common practices cannot override policies. And WP:VERIFY is a policy. Just think about it when proposing alternatives. I support the inclusion of references for all destinations.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment @CambridgeBayWeather: I like your work around. What do you think, @Andrewgprout? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 00:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry User talk:Sunnya343 - I am here and looking - this week started with the 2016 Kaikoura earthquake continued with flooding mid week along with continuous aftershocks and trying to effectively work from home because I can't enter my potentially munted place of work. All this is taking my time and energy. I'm having a think about what I think I could suggest as the actual question for a request for comment as I suspect it is bigger than the tight discussion about deletion of references we are trying to have here. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Wow, man. Be safe and good luck. oknazevad (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Andrewgprout: Hope things go well for you. So you want to go ahead with the RFC? Is CambridgeBayWeather's work around not sufficient for WP:V? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 19:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Note If you are going to add sources or revert someone who removed them, make sure they actually are a source stating the route is running. I have seen multiple examples of users adding references that do not prove wether the route is currently running. For instance, an article announcing that Delta will launch CVG-SAN flights on June 16, 2017 can remain until that date. On that date, it is perfectly acceptable to remove the source as it does not give any explanation that the route is running, as it does not tell you if/when the route actually began. If you insist in putting a reference, it NEEDS to show that the route is running. Examples include press release on launch day, timetables, route maps, ect. Quoting some users above, many of these sources are not "VALID" indications that the route is running and are completely useless. Sources that show the route is running should be allowed per WP:Verify but can be deleted if you provide a CLEAR explanation as to why. However, adding many sources for no valid reason would fall under WP:OVERCITE and is overkill to cite every destination, so similarly, please provide a reason for adding a source as well. Examples include it being a charter flight, being challenged, odd/inconsistent schedule, ect. Stinger20 (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Stinger20: Indeed. A source confirming the fact that the route started should be mandatory.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Stinger20: I agree with what you are saying, there are times when a source details the first flight of a route. However, 99% of the time, these things go unpublished. As suggested previously by @CambridgeBayWeather:, a simple statement at the top of the destination table stating that the airlines schedules remain the most accurate source and can be found on their respective websites. Garretka (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. A brief mention that acts at both a source and a bit of a disclaimer makes sense. Still think we should, if we can find it, add a general ref per airline (like a link to said timetable), but that's an ideal situation. oknazevad (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems it's been forgotten once again that this is not a travel guide and that there is a policy on verifiability that requires a citation for statements that are likely to be challenged. Can we please focus on the encyclopedia and not on Expedia?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Personally like above IMHO we should get rid of the tables altogether but that would require a bigger discussion, Anyway support this proposal. –Davey2010^Talk 16:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree with all those who suggest destination lists should either be referenced by schedule or pdf or be removed entirely, just keep the airlines serving the airports, nothing more.139.190.175.128 (talk) 05:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I think the only references should stay in the table are charters (seasonal and daily) as those are not typically listed in the airline's timetable unless it is bookable to the public and some will continue and some will be terminated and not return. But for newly launched regular services, I would say leave the reference in until the service really kicks in and the airline maintains it then we can remove it. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:IATA code for US with FAA ... is erroneous

Template:IATA code for US with FAA: This template appears to be an old one, and has gone unquestioned for some time. The logic behind the template is based on the fact that the IATA tries to use 3-letter codes for major airports which coincide with the codes issued by the local governing authority, in this case the FAA. However, the fact that most IATA codes for airports in the United States are the same as their FAA or ICAO code is unfortunately taken to equate to "most airports in the US having the same code..." under both systems. This actually is not the case. The fact is that the IATA doesn't recognize the majority of airports in the US, because they don't need to. Many airports in the United states use a combination of letters and numbers, 3 or 4 digits in length (the 4-digit codes represent private-use airports), and the IATA doesn't issue those types of codes at all. So, while the IATA code will most often be the same as the FAA code, the reverse is not actually true. MOST airports in the United states do not have the same FAA and IATA code. Most US airports have no need for an IATA code, and therefore don't have one. Since the IATA uses a 3-letter code identifier, this would very sharply limit the ability for that organization to account for all the world's airports, were that the case. In fact, it would only allow for something like 17,000 different 3-letter combinations, while there are approximately 44,000 airports in the world, and there are over 19,000 airports in the US alone. The US, by itself, would use up all of the possible combinations of letters were the IATA to attempt to include them all in its nomenclature. In fact, they limit such identification to those airports which have commercial service (passenger or cargo) or have in the not-too-distant past. This is quite decidedly a minority of US airports. Therefore, I feel this template should be eliminated and or corrected. It is incorrect, and often unnecessary. Mister Sparkle (talk) 02:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

You are right, it is erroneous. However, since the IATA/FAA difference is a significant source of errors in quite a few data sources (for instance, Geonames), I would vote to fix the erroneous part of the template, rather than eliminate it. By the way, IATA codes also reference railway and bus stations, heliports, sea plane bases, ferry ports. -- Denis.arnaud (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I am interested in this topic since that I've developed a template in french {{Aéroport|code=xxx}} as this template helps finding the right french wiki article of airport. And it does indeed not take into account the FAA US minor airports pb. In fact, the major problem I am striving to is the fact that the airport destination list is mostly often accurate only in English and not elsewhere. What a pity airport list aren't multi-languages. Bouzinac (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not against Denis's idea to fix the erroneous aspect of the template, as opposed to eliminating it. And then, making sure that the template is only used when an airport actually has an IATA code...in some cases, this template is used when there is no IATA code, which I think is pointless. Something like "While the IATA usually tries to use the same 3-letter identifier for US airports as that used by the FAA.." Along those lines. Mister Sparkle (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Definition of "airport in a city"

In lists like List of cities with more than one airport and List of busiest city airport systems by passenger traffic ‎, one of the most commonly argued point is about what count as an airport serving the city and what does not count. For instance on one of those article I have cited a source that the airport in Tijuana can be count as serving Mexico but another editor disagree. Any input? And then there are also some discussion about should GA airports count, and should scheduled charter services count. Or should we simply delete those articles on the ground of too much OR in the article definition? C933103 (talk) 05:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Reply: Your remark points the oddity of some airports, like Châlons Vatry Airport, supposed to be serving Paris, whilst it's 147km far away and thus is not seriously serving Paris.--Bouzinac (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: I believe it's up to the city to decide if a particular airport officially serves them or another city. Think London, it recognizes 6 airports as serving it thought there are other airports nearby that they don't recognize. I have heard that there is a particular reason why big cities like London and Paris do this, thought I don't remember why? Now to answer some of your questions; if I were you I would open up a discussion with the user that disagrees with you about Tijuana and try to come to a consensus about the issue. But remember that Wikipedia doesn't have to have the most up-to-date information regardless if you can cite it or not; most of these list articles are only updated once a year. So don't feel bad if you get nowhere with that user. I definitely believe that "Should the GA and charter flights count" is a wonderful topic for a discussion. Have a nice day, KDTW Flyer (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Reply: Specific to the example I mentioned, I have already discussed about it with the user on article talk page and both of us believe that conclusion cannot be reached without involvement of other editors. And that is one of the main reason why I opened a discussion here. C933103 (talk) 18:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Exact date issue for new routes

A lot of editors are getting nasty and picky about dates for new services as they are not aware that there was any consensus on this matter and not thoroughly discussed. LOT announced that they will resume service from Krakow to Chicago in July 2017 and it was added to the pages. Also MH will start service from BKI to TSN in 2017 and it was restored to the table. We need a final consensus on this. Should we just go ahead and add it to the table as long as it is sourced (we can update the entry it when a date is known) or we should just remove it completely as in the past and add it with a firm date. I know A LOT of people are very impatient on adding future routes. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it's best to wait until a firm launch date is announced. Airlines say things all the time, but we don't know they are certain until a set date is announced and reservations open. In June 2016, Qatar Airways said it would start Las Vegas–Doha flights in January 2017. Evidently, that's not going to happen. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 18:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. There were a lot of past discussions. The date requirement was not an arbitrary rule. Based on what we've observed about their reliability, a news report without an exact date is simply not a good-enough source. HkCaGu (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I went looking for those discussions, but failed to find them. I added a template to a couple of them, but if the consensus is that a month is not good enough and should be excised, I'll cheerfully agree ... richi (hello) 19:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@richi: here is one Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports/Archive_14#New_Routes.2FServices:_Exact_date_issue. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Got it. WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT, bullet 11 ... richi (hello) 21:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Just here to echo HkCaGu's comment -- unless a news report has an exact start/end date, it is not good enough. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 04:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Airport Map

Airport Map

Hi! Is there any reason, why this map should not add to Prague Airport? I can't follow the arguments. Discussion here: Prague Airport Talk
Thx! --CellarDoor85 (talk) 09:45, 27 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)

No as they have no relevance to airports, they are clearly mentioned on each airline article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Oops wrong talk page! — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 18:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Virgin America/Alaska Merger

Virgin America is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Alaska Airlines. Some users have changed the destination charts to say "Alaska Airlines operated by Virgin America." This is incorrect. Just like we list Eurowings completely separately from Lufthansa, we should continue to list Virgin America on it's own as it will operate as a separate airline for the time being. We screwed this up with Southwest/AirTran too when we listed it as Southwest Airlines operated by AirTran Airways and then swapped it to AirTran operated by Southwest. Does anyone disagree? Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for comments on the Airlines and destinations tables

Should we get rid of the Airlines and destinations tables in airport articles? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 00:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Options

• Option 1: Remove the tables and replace them with paragraph(s) about notable airlines (e.g. airlines hubbed at the airport) and notable destinations (e.g. an airport's only international destination).
• Option 2: Only list the airlines that fly to an airport, each supported by a reference.
• Option 3: Keep the tables, but something should be done with regards to references and complying with WP:VERIFY.

Survey

(Please only indicate which option you support here, with discussion in the section below.)

• Option 2. Per CambridgeBayWeather's decision below. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 13:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 1 Yes, remove these per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It is very hard to maintain these (as routes tend to get updated frequently sometimes). I see quite a lot of unsourced information in multiple articles. Stuff like this goes on the Airport's website. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2 List all the airlines, with references, rather than having editors try to decide which are notable at which airport. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• Options 2 Support the inclusion of airlines, but not of destinations.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2. A (sourced) list of airlines serving an airport provides scope without being too difficult to maintain and violating WP:NOTTRAVEL (as the current charts are), but it also doesn't cross the line into WP:OR the way option 1 seems to, as that requires creating a definition of what constitutes a significant airline for an airport. Just easier and more objective to list them all, so long as it's sourced. oknazevad (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 3, but without listing terminals - As explained in detail in my comment under the general discussion, destinations are an important element of the subject, as it conveys the connectivity and importance of the subject. The problem with using prose is that, particularly at large airports, it is difficult to prune the list down to the most important destinations. By trimming down the lists to a few destinations, it risks edit wars and may be too indiscriminate to be appropriate (see WP:INDISCRIMINATE and Wikipedia:Discriminate vs indiscriminate information). Discussion of destinations is an important aspect of the subject and should be included in airport articles. However, listing the terminal used for routes in the airlines & destinations table is, in my opinion, a relatively unimportant aspect of the subject, falling under WP:NOTTRAVEL, and should be removed. However, discussion of which airlines use which terminal is appropriate to mention in prose about the individual terminals. AHeneen (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 3, I feel that the airlines and destinations table is one of the most important ingredients in the recipe for a good airport article. As I mention below I definitely feel that something must be done to make them more reliable. --KDTW Flyer (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 3 We have done a lot of work to improve these tables -- and they are widely used. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 03:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• Having edited airport articles for some time, I present this argument:

• Wikipedia is not a travel guide with up-to-date lists of places a person can fly to from a particular airport. WP:NOTTRAVEL
• The lists are changing regularly and are difficult to maintain. Some airports have so many airlines with so many destinations, it can be difficult to keep track of which still operate and which do not. As a consequence, the lists may be out of date; but this is not indicated with an "As of xxx" statement (nor would this be feasible with so many airlines).
• The existing consensus is that there is an implicit reference for the information in the tables: the airlines' timetables. But how can the average reader be able to quickly find and verify this information, for so many airlines and destinations? And does the reader need to know every single destination served? WP:VERIFY
• Especially in Indian airport articles, new destinations are often added without references – the timetable shows them, but there are no news articles, etc. that confirm it. A reader has to go into the timetable, set the origin/destination and the date – and, what if the destination appears at some earlier date? Imagine checking each prior date for that.

All in all, the timetables are a hassle to maintain; and it is difficult for a reader to verify the information. In addition, I don't believe the reader needs to know every single destination served from an airport. As an alternative, I think mentioning only notable airlines (e.g. airlines hubbed at the airport) and notable destinations (e.g. an airport's only international destination) is enough.

— Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 00:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Sunnya343 can you explain a bit more about what you mean by notable airlines and notable destinations? The reason that I ask is for some airports if restricted to airlines that use it as a hub or their main base then they would have no airlines or charter airlines only. I would suspect that there plenty of airlines that are not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article but could still be referenced as existing and providing flights. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: I guess I do not mean "notable" in the strict, WP:N sense of the word. For example, at McCarran International Airport, I may talk about Southwest Airlines and Allegiant Air – which sort of have focus cities at the airport. I may also discuss Virgin Atlantic, which started the first nonstop service from the UK; and Korean Air and Hainan Airlines, the only airlines offering service to Asia. Sunwing and Sun Country may not be so "notable", however. Meanwhile, for an airport like Bathinda Airport – which has only one airline and destination – I could be more detailed. For example, "Air India Regional is the only airline to serve the airport, offering flights to Delhi on the ATR 72-600 five times a week."

If this becomes too subjective, perhaps Option 2 is better, with an introductory paragraph or something similar. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 14:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. That makes it easier. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• I'm going to weigh in on this: these tables are really useful and are extremely important for showing how the airport is still in use today. For articles where there are barely any sources, I think the destinations should not be added without verified sources. I am of the opinion, though, that chartered routes should not be displayed or if they are, then indeed sources should be added. Removing these tables would be a mistake in my eyes. st170e^talk 22:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• The question to me is what is encyclopaedic - what information enhances a reader's understanding of an airport in question and what is just unnecessary complexity? In my view information on typical routes that are flown from the airport are of interest and should be covered in an airport article, such information indicates its busyness, its sphere of influence for example. Likewise I suspect it is also interesting to cover the airlines that typically use the airport although I would consider this slightly less important than the routes. What I am certain in my own mind is that the current pedantic matrix of these two concepts co-joined adds little more to the understanding of an airport than a much simpler splitting of these concepts into separate "lists". The current matrix is very complex and full of unnecessary, uninteresting (to most readers - not you and me I know!) and often unverifiable detail. The nature of how the route information is presented is of interest, I quite like the idea put forward above of it being explained in words - this is likely to be the best way to concentrate the necessary information, I would not be entirely opposed to separate lists of destinations and airlines that serve an airport, I'm also relatively in favour of route maps as a concise way to show such information in a graphical way - although there are good and bad ways of doing this. Andrewgprout (talk) 03:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Andrewgprout: Wouldn't a list of destinations be just as difficult to maintain and reference? Having to account for each airline that serves a destination (so a destination terminated by one airline isn't removed incorrectly), going to each airline's timetable to see which destinations they fly to from an airport, etc. Also, regarding route maps, solely having a route map could present accessibility issues. Regarding the presentation of route information, see how you like my response to AHeneen. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 19:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The table isn't that difficult to maintain, though. Flight's don't change as often as you'd think. Most changes are notable enough to be reported in the local news, by the airlines, and on the airport's website. I understand that they may appear to change frequently, but I spent several years working on these tables and we never really had any issues. I am proud to see how far we have come with airport articles and these tables, and I think it would be a detriment to the project to get rid of them. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 04:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Tofutwitch11: I have noticed that the Indian airlines' domestic schedules seem to change regularly; IPs are always adding and subtracting destinations. I can find these route changes in the airlines' timetables, but I rarely find secondary sources. Also, one of my biggest issues is that these tables are deemed to be "current" – there is no "As of [date]" at the top of the tables. This situation may work for big airports in English-speaking countries, but I don't think it works for Chinese, Russian, etc. airport articles. I updated the destinations across several airport articles for GX Airlines sometime back. Some months later, I found that the airline had added a few destinations, and many of their routes had changed. Google Translating the timetable, secondary sources, etc.; going to each destination article to update – a big pain, and I gave up. Again, our current situation works for airports in the US, Europe, etc., but elsewhere... — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 04:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• I think that listing the destinations is just as important as listing the airlines, since the destinations indicate the connectivity of the airport to the world. The names of airlines don't necessarily indicate the country they fly to. Orlando is a good example of this, as it is connected to every large US airport (except Honolulu), nearly every mid-size US airport east of the Mississippi River, every large and mid-size airport in Canada and many other international destinations, but that wouldn't be obvious in a listing of airline names (Norwegian flies to Oslo, but also London, Copenhagen, and (in July) Paris; Air Berlin will fly to Düsseldorf, not Berlin). Listing the destinations is really the only way to gauge the connectivity of the airport to the world at some hub airports where the hub airline operates most international routes with only few international airports (eg. Atlanta and Seattle/Tacoma, but not London Heathrow or Sydney). In my opinion, I don't think it would be appropriate to list one of airlines or destinations without the other. While it is true that frequency of service matters, very few routes are less than weekly and the statistics section fills in that information gap. It is possible that major destinations and airlines could be listed in prose, but I think that would be subject to frequent edit wars over which destinations are significant enough to be mentioned and how many to list.

In my opinion, there is no need to list the terminal the airlines use, as that is trivial information that would fall under the WP:NOTTRAVEL (but tables with such information may be welcome at Wikivoyage). However, both airlines AND destinations add an important element to the subject and should be included in articles. The content of the tables unquestionably need sources, per WP:VERIFY. AHeneen (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@AHeneen: I agree, where you can fly from an airport is very important to know. However, my point is that these lists of destinations are hard to maintain and have problems with referencing. That too, is every single destination notable? Looking at MCO's article, is it notable that WN flies to Flint, B6 to Worcester, Magnicharters to MTY on a seasonal charter basis? Or at the LAS article, is it important to note that G4 to Eugene, Kalispell, and Shreveport?

You make a great point about WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Perhaps something could be written as such to deal with that policy: "As of December 2016, X airlines fly to X destinations from MCO. The top airlines by pax are X. X operates a hub at MCO, while Y and Z operate focus cities. MCO has service to X countries on X continents. The top destinations by pax are X. X was the first to offer service to X country, which is the top source of int'l passengers to MCO as of 2016. MCO is the second airport in Florida to gain nonstop flights from the Middle East, offered by EK to DXB, after QR to MIA." This is just a rough suggestion. Perhaps some guideline could be created for this. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 19:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - mild support for "too hard to maintain". I don't see anyone devoting the necessary amount of time. Speaking as a user (I would never get involved in this sort of article) my take is that wrong information is worse than a scope set to exclude certain information Elinruby (talk) 06:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

As someone who spent a few years maintaining tables, it wasn't too difficult. There are not as many changes as one would imagine. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 04:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I just want to say, I can understand the debate whether it is encyclopedic or not. I'm not going to vote on this, but I will say that I am sincerely going to miss the destination tables here if they are removed. They may not always be 100% accurate, but its greatly helped with my research in the industry and was an easy place to come and check routes, that I would then verify on the airline's websites. Encyclopedic or not, it was very useful to me, but I understand the case to remove them from Wikipedia too. Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Aviationspecialist101: I can understand. There was an Airliners.net thread asking if there is anything else on the web like the Airlines and destinations tables here. Originally I was strongly opposed to removing the tables, but I have started to see their problems. I have raised three airport articles to GA, but I doubt they could ever get to FA because of those tables. Please consider some of the options listed above, and see how you like my response to AHeneen above. We can still maintain the important information while keeping airport articles well-referenced and easy to maintain. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 20:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Advancing certain airport articles to FA should not come with the consequence of costing all airports their airline and destination table. It is possible to source every flight on that table -- and ensure it is accurate. If that's something you want help doing, I'd be happy to help. It is possible, and it's not too difficult. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 04:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - summoned by bot. I like the idea of having the destinations served by the airlines at each airport, but only if the info can be easily maintained. I don't have any idea how frequently routes and airlines change, but a simple search found this site [[1]], which seems to suggest that there are on average about 12 route changes announced a day. If this was my sole focus on Wikipedia, I'd be able to maintain the lists myself, so it stands to reason that 3-4 dedicated and coordinated people could manage it.Timtempleton (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Good find! Many of these changes don't require any update on the destination table. For example: a change in frequency, from 1 flight a day to 6, would require no change. A change in aircraft equipment or time does not require a change on the timetable either. Unless it is a new service or a cancellation of a service no table update is needed. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 04:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• I have some issues with Options 2 and 3. How exactly would the information be cited? Consider User:Ashill's words in an earlier discussion: — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 20:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether they can be verified by looking into airline schedules and the like. The issue is whether airline schedules are suitable sources. Reliable sources are supposed to be published, but airline schedules typically aren't anymore (at least not in a form that is readily available, since the PDF schedules have gone the way of the dodo for many airlines). Schedules are also transient. The verifiability and no original research policies don't require that a source be explicitly cited, only that a source be available (the example being "Paris is the capital of France" doesn't need to be cited, but there is no doubt that a source exists that says that). Therefore, in principle, destination lists are OK since the schedules do exist (at least for current destinations). But they're borderline: the sources aren't published, aren't third-party, and aren't even easy to explicitly cite (since there's typically no direct link to an actual schedule: finding the schedule for a given route typically requires entering a search query).

Well, for option 2, being just a list of airlines, but not destinations, that information is typically available at the the airports' websites as part of the terminal listings. It's actually pretty easy to verify that, and far less transitory than route schedules. oknazevad (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: That's true, but those websites often don't say the date they were published/last modified, so they can be outdated. Example is McCarran Airport's website. It still lists Hainan Airlines as starting service on December 2. Also, it continues to display Vivaaerobus, which has not flown to McCarran since January (It seems like they fly to McCarran on-and-off, and I can never find a secondary source for this). Now, CAPA has a list of the airlines flying to every airport, example. But it states "Airlines currently operating" – with no published/last modified date on the webpage. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 21:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

We are often more accurate than airport websites. Many are not updated frequently. However -- because the OAG comes out every month and because many route announcements appear in local media we are able to verify all changes in service. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 04:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• I went with option 3 because I feel that the airlines and destinations section is a good indicator of the size and notability of an airport (I consider larger airports to be more notable). But here's what I would change.... 1. stop listing the same destination under multiple airlines, for example, you go onto an article like Chicago O'Hare and you see Atlanta for about 6 airlines. I feel that we should come up with a way to merge so these so Atlanta is only listed once. 2. Get more strict on people listing starting, resuming and ending on the table with terrible or no citations given. 3. Remove seasonal destinations and charters, most things listed under charter only run once and newer run again, to me this is just a place where editors place destinations that they are unsure about, they may see it once on Flightaware and list it there.
  I feel that we should just keep the current policy of only destinations that are starting and ending need citations. My argument for this is, there are people who travel on these routes everyday; if there were no such thing as that route anyone can come here and say this route does not exist and delete it. There are many tools out there to verify if a route is present such as Flightaware for most of the world.

• Wikipedia is such a unique and incredible place. There is no where else on the internet where you can find a list of airlines/destinations like we have here on Wikipedia. If the issue is sourcing: every domestic flight can be sourced OAG Guides, which are published monthly. In addition, most airport websites provide a list of airlines and their respective destinations. I'd argue that they are encyclopedic as well -- the lists provide a good idea of which airlines operate the most routes, have the most business, and have the largest impact on the respective airports. It would be hard to have the same level of information in a paragraph. I'm not sure what improvement we would make by removing the tables. I think that would be a detriment to the project and to what we offer. We have done a great job at updating and modifying the tables -- and to see them go I think would be a huge blow to the project and everyone that has spent years keeping them accurate and up to date. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 04:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

In addition, I know many people across the industry that go to Wikipedia for the airline/destination tables. Even pilots will check Wikipedia -- as our level of accuracy often is greater than that of most airport websites. When Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger launched Wikipedia in 2001, did they think (or even want) Wikipedia would contain a comprehensive list of "Airlines & Destinations" for nearly every commercial airport in the world? No -- of course not. But did they think that Wikipedia would have over 5.3 million articles (just in English) or that the article for NYC would be over 20,000 words long, and contain over 525 references? Doubtful -- but here we are. We spend so much time explaining what Wikipedia is not and not enough time stepping back to look at what is truly is. We're so much more than an encyclopedia. We're a global resource of information, used by everyone from elementary school students to scholars in all disciplines. In a generation where everything is moving forward, I think that removing these tables is a giant step backwards. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 04:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

DAFIF

Plenty of aerodrome articles still mention DAFIF as a reference. It has been 10 years that this service was discontinued (to the public at large, anyway) so I think it cannot be considered a reliable reference now and henceforth. Couldn't we agree that all references to DAFIF ought to be removed, even if it is perhaps not very urgent? Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jan olieslagers: I agree; writing "As of October 2006" is quite out-of-date. However, could the DAFIF references be maintained for information like coordinates, elevation? Especially on articles with few other references. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 19:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I can see your concern: it is better to have a poor reference than no reference at all. Yes, indeed, I quite agree. Still, I daresay the vast majority of aerodromes, at least in the Western World, will now have better information at places like ourairports.com or openstreetmap.org Above all, I would suggest to not use DAFIF data for creating or updating articles. Actively removing the existing references can be a slow and non-systematic process, for me. Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

That's true about airports in the Western world. However, we should avoid using ourairports.com and openstreetmap.org as references, as they can be edited by anyone. FAA data, etc. is more appropriate. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 20:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Of course official sources are to be preferred. Here in Europe, however, most Civil Aviation Administrations publish only information about the main airports. US'ans are blessed with their FAA! Non-official sources, including the airfield operator's website, will need to be used if any reference is to be given. I therefore disagree we should avoid them, they are much better than nothing, as a reference. Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I suppose, but that seems like citing Wikipedia in a Wikipedia article. There is usually some reliable information out there, e.g. at Great Circle Mapper and SkyVector. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 02:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)