Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:AV)
WikiProject:Aviation exists to co-ordinate Wikipedia's aviation content. However, if you are here to ask a question or raise a concern about a particular article, it may be better directed to one of the following sub-projects:
 
Aviation WikiProject announcements and open tasks
watch · edit · discuss

Today's featured articles

Today's featured article requests

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(10 more...)

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Files for discussion

Featured article candidates

A-Class review

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Good article reassessments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(29 more...)

View full version (with review alerts)
Aviation WikiProject
Articles for review



This box:

Talk:United_States_UAP_files#UFO_or_UAP_in_article_title_and_wikivoice

[edit source]

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MH 370 "presumed" dead

[edit source]

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk: Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 that may be interest to members of this project. See Talk: Malaysia Airlines Flight 370#Stop removing presumed. guninvalid (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Western Sydney International Airport#Requested move 19 May 2026

[edit source]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Western Sydney International Airport#Requested move 19 May 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Qwerty123M (talk) 03:13, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Aerodrome

[edit source]

With a few more sources, this will be a B-Class article. Please add reliable sources to this important article. Bearian (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Atlantic Excellence

[edit source]
Notice

The article Atlantic Excellence has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreference for 15 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Poorly sourced article about a defunct joint venture.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 2026 GAN Backlog Drive

[edit source]
Good article nominations | June 2026 Backlog Drive
June 2026 Backlog Drive:

Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process?

  • On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed.
  • Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points!

Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.

Other ways to participate:
You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RSN discussion - flightradar24 as a whole fleet reference

[edit source]

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#flightradar24.com as a whole-fleet sources. Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Békés Airport

[edit source]
Notice

The article Békés Airport has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Poorly sourced article about a small airport. It has "no regular or chartered commercial flights".

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 01:42, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification Bearian. I have deprodded this one. I managed to track down 3 English language sources so far, 1 on the aerobatic Championships held here in 1984, and 2 more recent ones on plans/announcements of major expansion works. Another editor has also cleaned up some of the more promotional unsourced content. I acknowledge the article still has problems and needs work, but I think with the sources added, there is an argument it could meet GNG, although i am not opposed to testing this via AfD if there are strong views! Dfadden (talk) 02:54, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It looks much better. Thank you. Bearian (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:1976 Sabah Air GAF Nomad crash#Requested move 6 June 2026

[edit source]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1976 Sabah Air GAF Nomad crash#Requested move 6 June 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 01:21, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Crash notability

[edit source]

Hello, I was wondering if there is any insight into the notability of particular crashes. I have been reading on a crash in Timor-Leste in 2003 of an Ilyushin IL-76. The aircraft accident report:[1]. There appears to be mentions across aviation sites, but unsure how many are RSes. There is also news reports from the time, but I haven't found RS that confirm lasting impact per WP:NEVENT, although it did result in changed aviation procedures in Timor-Leste. There are articles such as 2003 Iran Ilyushin Il-76 crash which seem similar, but further opinions or even sources welcome. CMD (talk) 05:30, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There’s a guidance page at WP:AIRCRASH about the notability of accidents contained within aviation articles - for standalone articles, GNG would apply Danners430 tweaks made 08:01, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it's mentioned in Baucau Airport. I suppose a more specific question is whether news reports at the time, without later news reports, meets GNG. CMD (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not too sure… I’m not entirely sure tbh, as I suppose it risks breaching WP:NOTNEWS if it didn’t have coverage after the fact. Danners430 tweaks made 17:23, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907#Requested move 12 June 2026

[edit source]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907#Requested move 12 June 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard

[edit source]

There is a discussion on RSN about Airlinehistory.co.uk, the link for anyone interested is WP:RSN#Airlinehistory.co.uk. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:18, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RfC - how to list airports in destination lists

[edit source]

Part 1 - How should airports be listed in airport and airline destination lists? Note in all examples, the "Airport" suffix is dropped.

  1. List the official airport name (eg. Sydney Kingsford Smith)
  2. List as named by Wikipedia (ie. the name of the airport's Wikipedia article) (eg. Sydney Airport becomes "Sydney")
  3. List the airport by the city, town or municipality (in order of preference) that the airport is physically located in (eg. Sydney Airport is listed as "Sydney", Luton Airport would be named "Luton", instead of currently "London-Luton", and Charles de Gaulle Airport would be listed as "Roissy".)
  4. Use the name of the primary city served by the airport, to be determined by consensus in individual cases where there is dispute (eg. Luton Airport primarily serves London, therefore it would be listed as London Luton. Where an airport serves multiple cities, consensus should be reached on which is the primary city.)

Part 2 - How should cases be handled where multiple airports serve the same primary location (as determined by part 1)? For example, when Western Sydney Airport opens, the city of Sydney will have two airports serving it. How should they be differentiated? Note - in all cases the "primary region" is determined by the outcome of part 1.

  1. Where one airport is outwith the primary region, list it differently (eg. Western Sydney Airport is located 27 miles from Sydney itself, so list it as "Luddenham" or "Badgerys Creek" instead
  2. Disambiguate all airports in the same region using IATA codes - eg. "Sydney-SYD" and "Sydney-WSI"
  3. Disambiguate all airports in the same region using the official airport name - eg. "Sydney Kingsford-Smith" and "Sydney-Western"
  4. Disambiguate all airports in the same region using the specific locality the airport is located in (eg. "Sydney-Botany Bay" and "Sydney-Luddenham")
  5. A combination of options 2, 3 and 4 depending on consensus for the specific situations
  6. Use a method similar to WP:COMMONNAME to determine the disambiguator, based on a commonly-used name from reliable independent sources
  7. Do not disambiguate airports in the same primary region

Context: this RfC has been started as there has been repeated disagreement on how the existing style guide for airports should be implemented when writing destination lists. I've posted here rather than at the Airports WikiProject as this also affects airline destination lists. Danners430 tweaks made 10:51, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Options 4 and 5 6 (as proposer) - airports are known and advertised as the primary city served by the airport, with few exceptions. It does become necessary to disambiguate airports, but it's not always possible to fit them all into the same "box" - in some cases using IATA codes makes more sense, sometimes using local names (like London Luton) and sometimes official names (like Sydney-Kingsford Smith). Danners430 tweaks made 11:12, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Vote amended after the addition of COMMONNAME, an option I should have thought of from the start but didn’t…! Danners430 tweaks made 08:26, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
4 for part 1 and 5 for part 2
For part 1: The official name, or the name of the locality in which the airport is located will be unfamiliar to most readers looking at a destination list, for whom the city name will likely be the most familiar. A lot of articles about airports are titled with names which do not include the city in them, too.
For part 2: Following on from prioritising familiarity, we should use the most commonly known disambiguator. This can be different in different cases, including:
  • The official name of the airport, its abbreviation, or parts of these
  • The locality in which the airport is located
  • The IATA code of the airport (this seems a little unlikely to me)
Having commented on some of these disputes that the proposer is referencing, a major cause of dispute is determining the primary city, which this RfC does not decide any guidelines on. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:34, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I deliberately didn’t include the primary city here, because those disputes can’t really be handled by guidance rather by individual discussion. From what I’ve seen, the existing disputes have gotten bogged down by discussion about municipalities etc. which is what this RfC tries to solve. But please by all means, if there’s an improvement to be made here then please do suggest it! Danners430 tweaks made 11:40, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Disambiguate all airports in the same region" may be misleading. The term "region" can refer to different geographic levels, such as a city, district, metropolitan area, state, or even a larger administrative region. Using a more specific term would help avoid ambiguity and make the guidance clearer. UrbanGridIndia (talk) 07:44, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the original question, “region” here refers to the outcome of part 1 Danners430 tweaks made 07:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
ok UrbanGridIndia (talk) 07:56, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For Part 1 – Option 3
The reason I feel this is more appropriate is that it is more straightforward. I am also fine with Option 4, but the issue is that reaching a consensus on selecting a primary city could again create confusion, as people may have differing views on which city should be considered the primary one.
For Part 2 – Option 4
Again, for the same reason, I feel that approaches requiring consensus tend to become more complicated. It is better to use methods that require less consensus while still preserving all relevant information. UrbanGridIndia (talk) 08:08, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For Part 1 - 4*
(* = denoting that option 4 should also employ a common/consistent separator as appropriate (and consistent in the article's usage but can be omitted if not adding value), but would enhance clarity: for example: New York—JFK or "New York (JFK)" compared to "New York JFK" or "London London" as in the case of YXU)
for Part 2  - 6**
(** = denoting that the COMMONNAME use should be informed by common sense and what is best for clarity/context in usage in the article (as long as it is supported/agreed - the format should be fit for purpose, sometimes London Heathrow, sometimes London LHR might be more appropriate or more obtusely:- "London — London International" is not as clear as "London — YXU"!  (Similarly "Moscow — PUW" saves the day without looking redundant ("Moscow — Pullman-Moscow") but still differentiates from "Moscow—SVO / Moscow—Sheremetyevo").  
Option 6 - This also allows fluidity, for example I would presume that it is more commonly clear that Dubai(DXB) due to their branding/marketing using the IATA code is more well known and "Dubai International" and similarly across town the (up and coming) 10 year old airport is more likely to be referred to as "Dubai World" instead of "Dubai(DWC) or Dubai-Al Maktoum"  - so I think COMMONNAME gives better latitude for the common names in use (often times the airports official site assists as its identity....
(PS - I note that this RfC is laser focused saying this is the format only for "airport and airline destination lists" So all other AVIATION related content would be not expected to be referred to/considered in evaluation of this RfC? ( for example Longest Flights is an Aviation project page that according to this definition is outside this RfC then?) DigitalExpat (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you making this more complicated? Obviously we aren't going to write out "Harry Reid International Airport" in every table as lacking any location in its official name and being an unfamiliar name. No one has suggested option 2 in previous discussions either: it's funny that we get Toronto Pearson International Airport with the city first and namesake second but Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport reversed. And no one has suggested listing only often-unfamiliar physical locations either, so obviously 4, the current practice, is the only option. In part 2, literally nobody has ever used or suggested a "Sydney Botany Bay", so why are you proposing unreasonable options? 5 is the only thing that makes sense, there's not a one-size-fits-all for names and locations of airports, which differ in naming formats, relative size, familiar usage, specific areas served, and need for disambiguation in the first place. As Arnav noted, this doesn't even address the issue at the Airports talk, where the main issue is what the primary city served is. Reywas92Talk 14:12, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Because RfCs must be neutral, so I'm not going to restrict the discussion only to that which has already been talked about. As for the issue of primary city, I addressed that in response to Arnav's comment above - however it is covered by points 3 and 4 in section 1, because essentially the arguments have been whether we name them after the primary city (eg. Delhi) or the place the airport is physically located (eg. Noida).
If you have a better suggestion then I'm all ears - but it's clear that the current method of working... well isn't working, going by the back and forth. Danners430 tweaks made 14:22, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The airport is geographically & physically located in Jewar, 40 kms south of the primary city, Noida & 80 kms from Delhi. That's what I have been trying to explain you all long @Danners430. You are equating Hahn with Noida which is completely illogical. I am going to write it in simple words again.
Airport - Primary City - Physical/Geographical Location of the Airport
1) Indira Gandhi International Airport - Delhi - Palam
2) Noida International Airport - Noida - Jewar
3) Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport - Mumbai - Andheri
4) Navi Mumbai International Airport - Navi Mumbai - Ulwe (Navi Mumbai literally means New Mumbai. The word "Navi" is Marathi for "New" (as in new city not airport) so writing it as Mumbai-Navi sounds like York-New, complete nonsense)
I can't explain it more simply than this so please try to understand. FlyJet777 (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And what does this have to do with the RfC in question? Danners430 tweaks made 19:49, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"or the place the airport is physically located (e.g. Noida)" - You clearly seem to confuse Jewar with Noida. Hence I wrote that. FlyJet777 (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for opening this. I've raised concerns previously about how we approach Western Sydney Airport in the destination lists, so hopefully this will help generate a consensus moving forward. For Part 1, I think it is pretty straightforward. My preference is Option 4. I'm taking the perspective here that the utility of these lists for most people is understanding where airlines fly to from the airport, which they would associate with a city or major metropolitan area.

Part 2 is a little more complicated. As it is currently written, anything proposed other than Option 2 and Option 5 are unworkable, but 5 doesn't provide the level of specificity we need to resolve the issue - each case would still be open to interpretation. I think consideration should be given to disambiguation by WP:COMMONNAME instead of the options proposed.

  • Option 1 makes no sense at all and would be confusing for a reader. It might work for a major hub like Newark (per COMMONNAME), or for local audiences (eg. Most Australians would know Avalon is an airport between Geelong and Melbourne), but very few people interested in whether you can fly from San Francisco or Singapore to Australia are going to have a clue where Badgery's Creek is!
  • Option 2 actually works for disambiguation, as IATA codes are unique. However, this may not be easily recognisable or intuitive to readers who aren't aviation enthusiasts or frequent travellers.
  • As to Option 3, the official name is often very long, so it might be more appropriate to shorten it (this is where COMMMONNAME helps again!) Eg, the examples given of Sydney - Kingsford Smith and Sydney - Western do not actually match this scheme. The airport's official names are Sydney Kingsford Smith International Airport and Western Sydney Nancy Bird Walton International Airport. Nobody is going to bother to spell those out every time. It would be more appropriate to list them as Sydney - Kingsford Smith and Sydney - Nancy Bird Walton.
  • Option 4 is also ridiculous. For the examples given of Sydney, no recent sources would refer to airport by either of those names. You may find some sources referring to Badgery's Creek airport, but these would be purely historical references that pre-date construction of the airport.
  • Option 5 as stated is the most workable, but lacks specificity as a guideline to resolve disputes.
  • Option 6 7 would only work in specific situations. Eg. If and airline flys to both JFK and LaGuardia Airport, are we just going to list "New York" twice in the same list? However, in the case of Sydney where the airport is being marketed as serving Western Sydney, you could have both Sydney and Western Sydney in the same list. Interestingly, Sydney - Western' (which appears to be the preferred usage currently) seems to align more to this option (although it would be Western Sydney, rather than Sydney - Western). Dfadden (talk) 10:46, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think this may actually resolve the concerns raised by other responders... @UrbanGridIndia, @Arnav Bhate, @FlyJet777, @Dfadden, @Mike gigs, @Reywas92 - would any of you object to adding a seventh option to Part 2, that being "WP:COMMONNAME"? Danners430 tweaks made 11:06, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME would just result in disambiguations like "City name–Airport article title", right? And my concerns are with part 1, not part 2. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily - remember that COMMONNAME is essentially guidance on using "commonly recognizable names"... and if it's only being applied to the disambiguator, we'd be determining in each case what the common disambiguator would be. For example in the case of Sydney, it would probably be Kingsford Smith or Western, and in the case of New York it would be JFK or LaGuardia.
Just replying to your concern abot part 1... I don't think an RfC can really come to any consensus on what the primary city should be in every case, which is why I never added such a point. In each case it's different. The reason as far as I can see that no discussions about primary cities have ever gotten anywhere is because we've wound up mired in discussions over the other points in the RfC... in the case of Mumbai, we ended up going on a tangent about metropolitan areas for example. A lot of the discussions would be easier to have if it was focussed purely on which city an airport primarily serves, and if option 4 is decided upon in part 1 then that's the only question being asked. Danners430 tweaks made 11:54, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As there’s not been any opposition, and further editors have voiced their support, I’ve added COMMONNAME as option 6. Danners430 tweaks made 08:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I feel Part 1 is more complicated. Conflicts usually arise in large metropolitan areas where there are two airports located in two different cities. UrbanGridIndia (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I checked that Badgerys Creek is a suburb of Sydney, so the airport should be considered as serving Sydney. That is why I feel Part 1, is pretty straightforward in this case. UrbanGridIndia (talk) 11:32, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I feel Option 4 is not ridiculous is that, for example, "Sydney–Badgerys Creek" clearly indicates that the airport is located in Badgerys Creek, which is part of Sydney. This provides both the specific location of the airport and its association with the larger city it serves, while also giving us cleaner and more consistent guidelines.
We could also use IATA codes, but that would require readers to be familiar with them. Additionally, IATA codes are not always derived from the airport's actual location. for example, MAA is the IATA code for Chennai Airport. Airport names can also be quite long, so using commonly recognized short forms may be a practical alternative. For example, we could use "Bengaluru–KIA" for Kempegowda International Airport. UrbanGridIndia (talk) 11:47, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, IATA codes is one of the options - specifically option 2... Danners430 tweaks made 11:50, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think you will find much support for Sydney - Badgery's Creek amongst Australian editors. That has been proposed in discussions here before and found little or no support because of the issue I mentioned around not many sources that refer to it as that. But also, there are other issues. The suburb of Badgery's Creek itself is pretty obscure and not well known even by those in Sydney - it is a rural area on the urban fringe of the Sydney metro area with a population of less than 200, so hardly a major population centre! The airport itself spans lands considered in both Badgery's Creek and Luddenham, to actually has a different postcode (2745) to Badgery's Creek (2755). It is also planned that both suburbs will become part of a new large urban area called Bradfield over the next few years once the airport opens. Dfadden (talk) 12:36, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@UrbanGridIndia what you have said about "using commonly recognized short forms may be a practical alternative" is very close to what i am suggesting with WP:COMMONNAME Dfadden (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 4 for part 1, replacing "city" with "city or metropolitan area" (largely because what is considered as/defined as a "city" varies widely, and also to cover cases like DFW and BSL where the airport is named for and/or explicitly serves multiple cities). Short COMMONNAME for part 2, i.e. apply a short disambiguator that is widely used in reliable sources. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:27, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That is commonsense. We need more of it on Wikipedia. My vote is for the same! 10mmsocket (talk) 08:04, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve added another option for COMMONNAME since it appears a number of editors would support such an option. To be honest I should have added it from the get-go, so that’s my bad! Danners430 tweaks made 08:24, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Rosbif73's commmon sense approach Dfadden (talk) 13:33, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    One additional thought: some remote airports (e.g. AKV, GRY, PPW to name but a few) serve relatively small localities that are neither cities nor metropolitan areas. Should we explicitly allow for this in the wording (e.g. by stating "Use the name of the primary city city, metropolitan area or other locality) served by the airport?" Rosbif73 (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that’s sort of what I was going for with option 3 in part 1, but didn’t really carry over into option 4… but yes that does make sense. The only caveat being that if an airport can be said to serve a city above the locality, then it should be said to do so. Danners430 tweaks made 14:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    How about "Use the name of the primary locality (in most cases a city or a metropolitan area) served by the airport"? Rosbif73 (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems eminently sensible - I would support that Danners430 tweaks made 14:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    As a matter of process though, I’m not sure editing the RfC options a second time would be sensible… what say you? Danners430 tweaks made 14:36, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully some of the other !voters will comment on this suggestion and consensus will become clear without needing to edit the RfC statement again (which I agree would be rather late in the game) or ask a separate question. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Fingers crossed then - I just don’t like rug-pulling… adding an additional option is one thing, but editing an option after voting just seems wrong Danners430 tweaks made 14:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I can support "primary locality" as it accommodates remote airports that do not primarily serve a city or metropolitan area. However, I think it should remain clear that where an airport primarily serves a specific city, that city should normally be used. Otherwise, there is a risk of broader metropolitan or regional labels being used where a more precise city name is available. UrbanGridIndia (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is where Rosbif’s point about COMMONNAME comes into play - there are many airports where the municipality (as an example) is more commonly used to refer to the airport than the primary city. Danners430 tweaks made 15:21, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree @Rosbif73 as per my vote replied to up above (here) with the suggested tweak of also commonsense naming and commonsense formatting for optimal reading....
    ("London London International" looks funny and confusing", London (London International) is mildly better, but London (YVU) might be even better?) - but YMMV - should be whatever is best for the article and also using common sense, only use when disambiguation is needed (" Malé (Malé International)" or "Malé (Velana)" or "Malé (MLE) are all inferior/unneeded in most contexts than just "Malé" as this RfC is only for destination lists on Airline and Airport wiki's..... DigitalExpat (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • This RFC is grievously flawed in two critical respects.
Number 1: It does not attempt to define the problem it is trying to solve. Space is at a premium in destination lists, and the current consensus is that we use the shortest practicable form: the city it primarily serves, which is almost always spelled out in the airport's name, plus (if necessary) a short disambiguator if there are multiple major airports. This is perfectly in line with WP:COMMONNAME, where is the evidence that this is not working? (The context, which is oddly not mentioned here, seems to come from the RFC author's insistence on disambiguating Delhi and Mumbai, despite basically everybody else in that discussion disagreeing with them.)
Number 2: The list of proposed "solutions" is absurdly complex (there are 4 x 7 options!) and for no obvious reasons includes options that are contrary to current practice and Wikipedia naming conventions, like using the unabridged official names (mm, Guarulhos – Governador André Franco Montoro International Airport, Chaudhary Charan Singh International Airport, San Francisco Bay Oakland International Airport, these just roll off the tongue!).
And as the cherry on top, "part 2 option 5", an unspecified combination of options 2, 3 and 4, is pretty much what we have today and brings no additional clarity to edge cases. Asamboi (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You do appear to have confused a few rather crucial points though about the entire purpose of an RfC, so let me go through your points…
  1. I’m far from the only editor that had issue at the previous discussion - indeed I count at least two other editors that felt the existing method wasn’t working. The entire purpose of an RfC is that when existing systems aren’t working, which is borne out by the repeated arguments about this issue, a new consensus needs to be formed. That is what this is doing.
  2. There are numerous options for the simple reason that RfCs need to allow for all viewpoints. We may think an option is absurd, but that is our viewpoint - it may not be shared by other editors. There’s a very simple solution - don’t vote for the solution you think is absurd, vote for the solution you feel is the most sensible. It may well be that no change in procedure is the outcome - and that’s a valid outcome.
Going by the productive discussion that has been had up until this point, it’s evident that the RfC is needed. It’s not being closed, it’s not going away, so if you have an opinion please let’s hear it. Danners430 tweaks made 10:52, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, I will not endorse this mess of an RFC. You need to go back to the drawing board, come up with a concrete proposal (you've already changed the options available in mid-flight) and provide some examples of how that would be superior to the status quo for contested cases. Asamboi (talk) 21:58, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Happily, we do not require “endorsement” from editors to hold RfCs. Danners430 tweaks made 22:02, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Interested in expert input on correct application of MOSFLAGS in list of Aviation city pairs (not airports/destination list)

[edit source]

Dear esteemed WikiProject Aviation editors - over on the Longest Flights article, there has been a fair question raised that after having them for the last 5 years, is it an incorrect interpretation of MOSFLAGS to include country flags to the article's lists of record setting flights' city pairs. It remains a modestly low volume trafficked site and as a part of the Aviation Wikiproject, could benefit from valued input from the project's contributors there so as to make the article as high quality as it can be (and keep up the reputation for high quality aviation articles of the WikiProject!)

Talk:Longest flights#Looking for editors thoughts on flag icons' appropriateness/compliance with MOS as used in the lists?

If anyone has the time/inclination (and I have searched the talk archives here as the MOSFLAG topic comes up often here, but believe this use case is not addressed in previous conversations)

(Also full disclosure - I am one of the contributing editors as well as conversation participant there on the talk page)

Thank you all for making some really great quality aviation articles! DigitalExpat (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation&oldid=1361106255"