Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

WikiProject Airlines was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 18 February 2013.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

RfC notice

This is a notice that I have started a new RfC on the applicability of WP:NOT to our lists of British Airways destinations. If you would like to participate please follow this link: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not § RfC on WP:NOT and British Airways destinations. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor removing infobox images for airlines - request for info

I’m tired of waiting for the IP, so here we are…

Is there existing consensus to not include images in airline infoboxes? The documentation for the infobox for airlines doesn’t say the parameter shouldn’t be used, and the style guide on this wiki project doesn’t either. Just wanting to check before I take the IP to the 3RR noticeboard… because I’m happy to hold my hands up if I am indeed wrong :) Danners430 (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy pinging @Ivebeenhacked: and @Yuezhi Huang: Danners430 (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Archive 22#Aircraft images in airline infoboxes CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think it’s time to take this editor to the dispute resolution noticeboard before people start exceeding 3RR… Danners430 (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why are they all IP users Yuezhi Huang (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s likely the same person using a dynamic IP Danners430 (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although I’m new here and not that familiar with all the rules, but I do know that if its the same person then Wikipedia is definitely not his/her back yard, thx for taking it to the public and finally solve this thing, I’m tired of being harassed by this person. Yuezhi Huang (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you’re in a dispute like this, it’s always best to ask for help or guidance - we are a community at the end of the day, and this project lives on consensus and teamwork. Never feel afraid to seek out the right venue to ask for help - and if you’re not sure about the right venue, look at the village pump. Danners430 (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft images in infoboxes

So, as many people have seen, one editor has started to add aircraft images to airline infoboxes en masse, breaking a long precedent to exclude them. While we have established that there is no prior consensus against this already, this has led to some lingering edit warring as some users continue to remove newly added photos and others immediately add them back - all without building individual consensus either way.

To combat this, should we outline some sort of guidance on whether or not aircraft pictures belong in infoboxes? And if they do, should we set guidelines for what type of photos? There has been additional edit warring over what type of pictures to add (photos of whole aircraft, photos of tails, photos of special liveries, etc). Personally, I am indifferent to whether we have a picture in the infobox or not - I'm just getting a bit tired of seeing the photos change every day (if they are there at all). Thoughts from the community? Thanks! ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 15:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again… see the discussion directly above yours - it was established that such a consensus doesn’t exist. Danners430 (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw... that's why I said there was no prior consensus against this already... I came here to try and build one - just because there is no consensus doesn't mean we can't build one if the question is posed. ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 19:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be the following:

Include an image of one aircraft, of a type and livery that is representative of the airline’s operations. Type doesn’t matter, as long as it’s in the main line fleet and carries the current standard livery. Danners430 (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Back in 2009 (Template talk:Infobox airline/Archive 1#Second image?) I opened a discussion on a second image. As it was so important I waited 10 years to change the template and the documentation and then started adding a second image. I don't recall getting much opposition to it. So there is a 5 1/2 year precedent to include a second image. I still think that HQ, ticket counter, or livery, in that order of precedence, would be the way to go. Having the second image matches with the airports.

By the way if "one editor has started to add aircraft images to airline infoboxes en masse" they should be invited here to comment. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There has been one single IP editor (multiple IPs, but obviously the same person) removing the images, and a host of people reinstating them, so it's more the other way round... Danners430 (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thats correct, and he/she is threatening people for banning them from editing Wikipedia without a proper reason rather than sticking to a never-existed “consensus” which is more alike a personal preference. This behavior should clearly, under the conditions of WP:HA considered as harassment. Yuezhi Huang (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's an empty threat. Nobody is being banned for adding images, especially when there isn't a consensus on them. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To my personal opinion, adding pictures in the infobox is definitely a plus point for the page, as I’ve stated the reason clearly when I publish those individual edits. At the mean time, there are no consensus regarding “no to do so”. Also my personal preference when selecting those pictures, as far as of this very moment is:

A line-up of tails/aircraft w/ current livery > Flagship aircraft (often widebodies) w/ current livery > random aircraft w/ current livery > Flagship aircraft w/ old livery > random aircraft w/ old livery

And of course, when considering which picture to choose in the same category the light condition and the angle of the picture is definitely matters too, upper side is often more preferable than the downside as they demonstrate the livery with a better angle. Similar to famous aircraft image sites e.g. planespotters.net and jetphotos.com, I will link it down below: https://www.jetphotos.com/uploadguidelines/

Seeing those pictures changing everyday is also tiring for me, but I think forbidding them from the infobox is not a good way to solve them, a certain standard should be made. Yuezhi Huang (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Showing the company headquarters would be in line with the established practice across most company pages on Wikipedia (and these are typically also the primary company page).

However, I also feel that aircraft are more of an "icon" for an airline. My proposal, if we decide to go with aircraft is to follow a practice similar to that used on aircraft pages with a strong preference for well-lit, in-flight images against a blue cloudless sky, with the nose of the aircraft facing left. I would also add that we should prefer an aircraft from mainline fleet (no preference on widebody vs narrowbody) and carries the current standard livery.

I would oppose ticket counters. There's just too many variations, with privacy problems (as people are often in the images), and they're increasingly not part of the "airport experience" for many customers. I, for one, can't remember the last time I stopped at a lobby ticket counter. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would go with aircraft images since some pages have separate infoboxs regarding the AOC with ICAO/IATA codes and the actual holding company behind, for example Lufthansa Airlines and Lufthansa Group, in this case, we might wanna use HQ/others for the holding company and aircraft images for the AOC. Cheers Yuezhi Huang (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The other WikiProject that i heavily contribute to is Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways - there it is very much standard practice to put an image of one of a train operating company's trains in the company infobox - it's the most recognisable part of that company to the casual reader, and in much the same way an airline's aircraft are the most recognisable part of the company. Danners430 (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK but it shouldn't be taken as banning other images if the preferred type isn't available. Most of the aircraft images I get are when they are down and parked on the apron.

As for ticket counters I meant when they were empty. They tend to have the airline livery / logo as well. Based on my recent trip through Edmonton International Airport most people still check-in at the ticket counter. Few were using the self-serve booths. I guess it depends on the airport. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Europe most people aren’t using the counter anymore as mobile passes are kinda standard thing as the airlines will push you through the paperless process, unless you have a check-in luggage.

Most check-in counters have the standard airport design as they are shared between few different airlines at different time periods of the day depending on the traffic flow. Exceptions will be those counters at the airline’s base, for example the check-in counters at Frankfurt will have a Lufthansa logo and a yellow plastic board at the front but those pictures are extremely rare. To me the airline’s livery would be the best choice since they are the element that the airline’s put most of their design money into. Yuezhi Huang (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. The same is largely true for US carriers too. RickyCourtney (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that airline counters are rather useless as identifying images, as outside of a logo sign there's nothing particular to the airline. In fact their designs are more typical of the particular airport's architecture than the airline's image.

As for the HQ image, I know that there's people who think that every article on every company should have a picture of the company's HQ in it, but I've always thought that was a bad take. United Airline's HQ is in the Willis Tower. So are dozens of other companies, and there's zero exterior signage indicating United's status as a tenant. This isn't like Prudential Financial's HQ in Newark, NJ, where the building was purpose-built for them, is solely occupied by them, and has their name and logo in giant letters atop the building.

All this to say my personal prefer me for a second image besides the airline's logo would be one of their planes showing their current livery. Doesn't have to be a wide body or anything unusual among the airline's fleet (that is, no preference to an A380 just because it's distinctive. If anything, we should aim for more typical aircraft since the purpose of the image is to show the livery, not that the airline has planes that others don't. oknazevad (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Counters are not always useless, File:Canadian North check-in counter in Inuvik (Quintin Soloviev).jpg is an example. But probably a rare one. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I gathered information from the discussions so can we come to a solid conclusion so we can solve this problem asap, preference as follows from the most to the least:

——————————————————————————————————

1) Aircraft images under the preference of:

No watermark

Current standard livery (no special livery)

Mainline aircraft (avoid regional ones)

Good light condition

Clear,simple background

Avoid bottom side angle

Facing left

2) Airline Headquarters image

Good light condition

3) Airline check-in counter images under the preference of:

With airline specific design (not just the screen and the uniform)

No faces included for other people’s privacy

*Note: if no proper image are found within the same grade that fits all the conditions, certain restriction can be removed from bottom to top.

——————————————————————————————————

Please feel free to give suggestions and modifications to the sheet as this is just the first proposal. Yuezhi Huang (talk) 13:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to define a "flagship aircraft" is nebulous. I don't think you need to give preference to wide bodies over narrow. However, I would vote to give preference to mainline aircraft over regional aircraft which (at least in the US) are primarily operated by contractors.

I would also advocate for a preference for a in-flight image (which is also stated by WP:AIRCRAFT) and a background of a blue cloudless sky.

What do you mean by a bottom side view? If you mean an image taken from ground level of an aircraft in flight, you’ll exclude a lot of really good images.

Also, while you expressed a preference for tails, I haven’t seen broad support from other editors for that. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, my personal preference for “flagship” aircraft is due to follows:

Unique aircraft type: An A380 or 747-8 will be more representative than widespread A320 or B737, as they are iconic themselves and represents certain airlines for their unique capability of operating this type.
Larger scale: which means more area for the livery.
Easier to find: as they tend to gather more attention from the spotters.

Secondly, I would also vote for a clean background (blue sky, mountains in distance etc.)

Third, a bottom side view means a view below the horizontal line, which I personally make it less preferable due to:

The landing gear mechanism and the wings will cover most of the livery as most airlines don’t like to paint the bottom side of the wing and fuselage. However, I would also vote for a few airline's livery with the bottom side painting e.g. Emirates and Austrian Airlines.

Fourth, the tail picture give the feeling of “a fleet of different aircraft” instead just one single type, which I personally think it’s more representative as the title pic of an airline. Yuezhi Huang (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to define "flagship aircraft" is difficult outside of large airlines and even then it's subject to sourcing. A lot of Wikipedia articles are about smaller airlines that may not have a particular flagship type. Look at List of airlines of Canada and sort by fleet size. Other than the first three most of those are relatively unknown. For example what is the flagship of Kenn Borek Air? Is it the Twin Otter because that's the aircraft most associated with them? How about Canadian Helicopters? It's Canada's 4th largest airline by fleet size. What's Buffalo Airways? Is it the Douglas DC-3, the Douglas C-54 Skymaster or the newer Lockheed L-188 Electra. Looking again I'd be hard pressed to figure out the "flagship" aircraft of Canada's three largest airlines. It's not mentioned in a any article.

In the tail lineup in File:EVA Air Lineup TPE.jpg there are two different tails shown are they both the same airline. Getting that sort of shot is going to be very difficult for non-major airlines. We sometimes get two or three aircraft on the apron from Summit Air or Canadian North but they don't line up nicely like that. In addition, other than to the enthusiast, tails are not a defining aspect of an aircraft. We are generalist encyclopedia writing for the general reader and not an aircraft spotter. There are better sites like Planespotters, that are betterd suited to people who are enthusiastic about aircraft. Look at File:C-FDHB DHC6-300 Kenn Borek Air Ltd 01.JPG. To me the entire aircraft better shows the livery than a shot of the tail.

While we can give preferences for picture types they shouldn't be hard and fast rules.

My preferences are:

Airline headquarters of main base
A shot of the entire aircraft in the current, or most recent, livery (preferred order)
1. In the air facing left or right,
2. On the ground preferably not from below
3. Tails only
Ticket counter, where it clearly shows airline colours

You don't need to mention watermark, good light condition, clear simple background, and no faces. Most of those are covered already by Commons. I really can't get the type of pictures you are looking for. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 13:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think aircraft would be better than headquarters - the headquarters aren't as well recognised as aircraft are, and I think this should be the primary driving factor. I'd agree with the criteria you set out - might be worth adding that they should be high quality, with as little background clutter as possible... although I think that's standard policy anyway Danners430 (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy with moving the HQ or base lower down in the list. By the way. faces can be used under certain conditions as privacy laws differ across countries. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 13:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Worth to mention that this is a preference list, not a to do list, the pic in the infobox don’t have to cover all the factors in order to be published. The target of setting such a list is to prevent people from switching the pictures back and forth and to have a certain direction to switch for a better one and eventually become stable. People are switching pictures for multiple times on different pages like crazy in the past two days.

There’re a bunch of pictures with watermarks on commons and most of them do have very bad light conditions too. So it is worth mentioning if certain things happened and a solution or standard is required. Yuezhi Huang (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for List of Delta Air Line accidents and incidents

Given that there are so few page watchers at List of Delta Air Line accidents and incidents, I am requesting feedback regarding the list criteria here: Talk:List of Delta Air Lines accidents and incidents § List criteria. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard has an RfC

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:24, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor adding ticketing systems to interline airlines sections

179.109.143.172 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has added "Hahn Air" (hahnair.com) and APG Airlines to a bunch of interlining agreements sections of hundreds of airline articles, e.g. see this edit diff on Virgin Australia. They both appear to be some sort of multi-airline ticketing system/travel agent website. They've done 126 edits on en-wiki over the past 24 hours and I've only reverted a few of them. Fork99 (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for that its because i focus mainly in adding interline and codeshare agreements in airline articles and i use as source mainly news articles about new codeshare and interline agreements (i am a good faith editor and i am not using wikipedia for promotional things) and i didint knew it was promotional so sorry for that also my ip changed best regards.

179.109.143.90 (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]