Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports

I recently deleted a list of former airlines and destinations in the Kai Tak article on the basis of WP:IINFO. Though I'm not sure it was fair to do so, because we have a discrepancy between our airport and airline articles: we list every current and former destination of an airline (e.g. List of Delta Air Lines destinations), but we only list every current airline and destination of an airport. Is this discrepancy justified? Sunnya343 (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Why not? One is about transportation hubs, the other is about corporations. The airline articles could be improved by saying when a terminated destinated used to be served or when a current one began. The airport articles could even have what airlines used to fly there. Of course, we've collectively made editorial decisions for each of these sets of pages to have a certain type of format that would be most helpful to readers, but tables on different topics may certainly have different formats, so I don't see a discrepancy. The Kai Tek article could indicate what airlines/routes flew there when Hong Kong Airport opened rather than those at any time, but I don't see that list as indisriminate either. Reywas92^Talk 20:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

In my view both are fundamentally the same: lists of airline destinations. One is by airline, the other by airline from each airport. For example we have a list of Delta's destinations and lists of its destinations from Atlanta, Detroit, etc. It's just two different layers of detail.

I don't think most editors would support a list of former A&D in airport articles. Someone once tried to add one to the CVG article and it got moved to the talk page. Sunnya343 (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

For Kai Tak and other closed airports, I don't see a problem with a list of historical destinations as long as we can source them properly. Destinations don't need to be current to be encyclopaedic, and route development to Kai Tak is historically important information. SportingFlyer T·C 17:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Historical destinations are certainly verifiable, for example from old OAG copies at DepartedFlights.com or old route maps. But that's where I see WP:VNOT come into play. I favor summarizing information from these sources and integrating it into the history section. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

In the lead sentences of a number of articles about airports, or in a footnote attached to the lead sentence, there is a list of "obvious" colloquial names for the airport. Example: Midway International Airport begins:

Chicago Midway International Airport (IATA: MDW, ICAO: KMDW, FAA LID: MDW), typically referred to as Midway Airport, Chicago Midway, or simply Midway, is a major commercial airport on the Southwest side of Chicago, Illinois, located approximately 12 miles (19 km) from the city's Loop business district.

Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport begins:

Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport^[a] (IATA: PHX, ICAO: KPHX, FAA LID: PHX) is a civil–military public airport 3 miles (2.6 nmi; 4.8 km) east of downtown Phoenix, in Maricopa County, Arizona, United States.

Some other airports have similar lead sentences or footnotes attached to them. Are all these colloquial names necessary, or could we consider cutting back on them somewhat? -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with removing the extra obvious names. I first noticed this in the ATL article: "Also known as Atlanta Hartsfield–Jackson International Airport, Hartsfield–Jackson International Airport, Atlanta Airport, Hartsfield–Jackson, and formerly as the Atlanta Municipal Airport". Sunnya343 (talk) 02:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I also agree, only include other names if they're actually alternatives. Obviously people don't always say the full [Namesake][City][Type][Airport], and we don't have to write out the most self-evident shortenings. Reywas92^Talk 20:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I have made some edits along these lines. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

What would be wrong with just adding a couple of common colloquial names only inserted in footnotes? Especially names found on highway signage commonly used by travelers. For instance, at John F. Kennedy International Airport, there is a footnote in the lead that says "colloquially known as JFK". You can argue that JFK or JFK Airport is an "obvious" name and also the same as the FAA airport code. It couldn't hurt to include "Kennedy Airport" too in this footnote. Not saying add all colloquial names to create clutter, but only those most commonly used. Clearly cutting back doesn't mean deleting all completely. Tinton5 (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• When I was making the edits to remove some of the colloquial names, I intentionally changed the footnote from "Colloquially referred to as JFK Airport, Kennedy Airport, New York-JFK, or simply JFK" to just "Colloquially referred to as JFK". That's because most airports are not commonly referred to by the general public by their FAA or IATA codes, but John F. Kennedy International Airport often is called "JFK" by the general public. (I'm not talking about aviation buffs who know and use lots of FAA/IATA codes.) Similarly, I left the footnote "Commonly referred to as LAX with each letter pronounced individually" on Los Angeles International Airport because that nickname is used by the general public, unlike most FAA/IATA codes. In other words, FAA/IATA codes are not obvious nicknames for airports since they are only used as nicknames for a few airports. By contrast, a nickname that just consists of the city name plus the word "Airport", or a distinctive part of the airport's name (such as the surname of the airport's namesake) with or without the word "Airport", is the kind of "obvious" name that I think doesn't need to be included, and it looks like Sunnya343 and Reywas92 agreed with me. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place regarding the title of the Bangalore airport article: Talk:Bengaluru Airport § Requested move 4 May 2024. Sunnya343 (talk) 04:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Even if the word vertiport is redirected to Heliport it's not the same. Just have a look on Draft:vertiport or the German version from it is translated, to find some of the differencies. Helicopter and eVTOL aren't the same too. So you may unterstand, why I want to create a new article named Vertiport in English Wikipedia. What do you think about it? Leo067 (talk) 07:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

My two cents: we should not be in a hurry to document a neologism that is scarcely used "in the real world". First wait for the term to "take root". Besides, even if today some people make a difference between "eVTOL" and "Helicopter", that difference will only become more and more vague over time, in my expectation. Jan olieslagers (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I’ve been having a bit of an edit war with some IP editors over at Salt Lake City International Airport. The back and forth edits have been going on for over a month now. Basically, the IP user(s) keeps changing “Washington—National” in the destinations table to “Washington—Reagan National” or something similar. I keep reverting as “Washington—National” is used on every airport page that has it as a destination; it’s even used in the example table at WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. Just wanted to gather consensus that “Washington—National” is the name we should be using so we have established consensus about it. VenFlyer98 (talk) 01:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd prefer "Washington-National" since it's more concise. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Is it too simple to refer to that airport with the name/title it has with us? Which does (to my regret, but this is not really my cup of tea) begin with the name of the former US president? Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I brought this up on the the KSLC page a while ago, and VenFlyer8 was the only person who responded. I think the ongoing good faith edits to Reagan National have a lot to do with it being the most commonly used name for that airport among the people who most frequently use KSLC. In other regions it's probably more common to refer to it as simply National. I know it's a politically charged question to an extent, but I do see the value of labelling with the name that it is commonly given; especially since it's the official name. The arguments I've seen for just Washington-National are that it's shorter, and it's the status quo. Ok, but why is it the status quo, and does that matter? Seems arbitrary. Darkage7_[Talk] 23:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll clarify that I think either Washington-Reagan or -National are acceptable, as long as there's consistency within the article. "Washington-Reagan National" is another option, but perhaps it's unnecessarily long. Sunnya343 (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Washington-Reagon National still seems appropriate in my view, even if it may be a long name. Although simplifying the name is ideal, I think the important thing is: 1. is the name correct and 2. is the name consistently applied throughout the article. As long as both conditions are met, then I don't think it's too much of an issue with whichever of these 3 options the airport is called. Jrbob 123 (talk) 11:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with this, full one seems a bit long, even if it’s accurate. I’d say either of those work, it’s just the consistency across pages (although I know that doesn’t really matter as what 1 page does should have no effect on another). I will say the airport’s name is “Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport” with “National” following “Washington,” I think that’s the reason for my preference towards “Washington–National.” VenFlyer98 (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Yet another reason that destinations shouldn't be included in airport articles. Destinations are not a property of an airport, they're a property of an airline. Airports don't travel to other airports, airlines do. Canterbury Tail talk 21:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)