| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Qantas destinations redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
New column for Australian territories
editHello there, community! I place this because of this edit. Do you think it is necessary for the article to have a new column including the Australian territoriy for each Australian destination? If so, why not including the states for Canadian and American destinations? Please let me know what you think. Regards.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/page content says that the state/province/territory information should be included in the country column: States and provinces should be added in parentheses in the country column. Not every country has states and provinces so do not create a separate column for these as it may be blank in many cases. Agree that no matter which way you do it, if you include Australian territories, you should include US states and Canadian provinces as well. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- We need to implement the new format we all agreed on. We had consensus for it, but no implementation. —Compdude123 23:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Separating into international and domestic operations negates the need for non-Australian states and territories.Mdw0 (talk) 06:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Current and terminated destinations and domestic and international ones coexist in the same table according to WP:AIRLINE-DEST-LIST. I've also reverted your unexplained mass removal of entries.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- The guidelines say the terminated cities should be in the article. They don't say anything about allowing or disallowing entries in separate lists. The concept of a separate table for terminated routes hasn't been dealt with. There is an assumption that there should only be one list. I think having separate lists is much more useful, because someone searching for a list of destinations is usually interested only in current destinations. They are looking to answer the question 'Where does Qantas fly to?' They shouldn't have to separate current information mixed up with somewhere the airline used to fly for a few years in the 60s but stopped and never went back. This mixture is indifferent to what readers want from the article. I also think separating domestic from international is useful because they are almost separated anyway if the list goes by country. The flights to Argentina are separated from the other international entries by a long domestic list. Much better to split the lists, if only for ease of use by the reader.
- There wasn't a mass removal of entries for Qantas destinations. You don't need such silly hyperbole to make your point. There were a couple of removals of some incorrect entries, such as the non-scheduled services to Christmas Creek. Haneda and Narita simultaneously is also wrong as the changeover will not happen until later in the year, and Qantas doesn't and hasn't ever flown to Avalon and Osaka. They are Jetstar destinations. Jetstar and Qantas are different airlines. Just because Qantas includes them as a partner airline in its route map, that doesn't mean Jetstar-only routes belong in this list. In fact, I'd like to see any possible case anyone could make to have them included. Mdw0 (talk) 04:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- WP:AIRLINE-DEST-LIST 'recommends using the table-based format because it is used in two featured lists, List of Braathens destinations and List of Dragonair destinations.' But it neglects to mention that the first of these is a defunct airline where ALL the destinations are terminated and wouldn't be looked at by someone looking for current destinations, but only by someone curious about a defunct airline's history. It also neglects to mention that Dragonair is an affiliate of Cathay Pacific, based out of Hong Kong - it ONLY flies international destinations! These two featured lists are much cleaner, simpler and straightforward than the Foo Airlines example. If these are the only two featured lists, I would say that is an argument FOR separating out international from domestic and terminated from current destinations, to make the lists cleaner, and more like the featured lists. We are much better off having four clean, simple, useful lists than one mess. Also, both these featured lists go by CITY, not COUNTRY as is in the Foo Airlines example. If we did this to the Qantas lists it would remove the state label issue completely. Also, both the featured lists have the IATA city codes, which the style guide says not to do. That style guide which Jetstream is so keen to guide editors to as a repository of knowledge and wisdom contradicts itself quite a few times. I wonder if that is the result of Jetstream's edits of the style guide, of which there are many.Mdw0 (talk) 06:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- The corresponding Dragonair and Cathay Pacific articles are not in agreement with the new guidelines, which were agreed by consensus. You need to raise your concerns regarding these articles at WT:AIRLINE, not here. Nonetheless, they need to be fixed to fit the new guidelines. You can start fixing them if you want. I don't have the time. Separately, given that this is not a travel guide but an encyclopedia, I don't find any issues with having current and terminated destinations mixed in a single table. Again, this was agreed by consensus.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Encyclopedias still need to be concerned with their readers more than the writers of articles, and new ideas shouldn't be stomped on just because they are new. I will put together my case at WT:AIRLINE, and resist the wave of old hands who will, no doubt, whinge that 'we've gone through all this before.'
- The corresponding Dragonair and Cathay Pacific articles are not in agreement with the new guidelines, which were agreed by consensus. You need to raise your concerns regarding these articles at WT:AIRLINE, not here. Nonetheless, they need to be fixed to fit the new guidelines. You can start fixing them if you want. I don't have the time. Separately, given that this is not a travel guide but an encyclopedia, I don't find any issues with having current and terminated destinations mixed in a single table. Again, this was agreed by consensus.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Current and terminated destinations and domestic and international ones coexist in the same table according to WP:AIRLINE-DEST-LIST. I've also reverted your unexplained mass removal of entries.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Separating into international and domestic operations negates the need for non-Australian states and territories.Mdw0 (talk) 06:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Archived references not used in the article
edit- "QANTAS Resumes Vancouver Service in Jan 2015". Airline Route. 16 September 2014. Archived 19 September 2014 at the Wayback Machine
--Jetstreamer Talk 13:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Archived timetables
editJetstar and Qantas are different airlines
editHere is where the case must be made as to why Jetstar destinations are included in this list. Jetstar and Qantas have LESS commonality than Cathay Pacific and Dragonair, yet JQ and QF are included together and the other is appropriately separate. The Manual of Style says codeshare connections should NOT be included. If Jetstar is included, at the very least the title of the article must be changed to say the list is of Qantas and Jetstar destinations.Mdw0 (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- The article clearly states at the lead that Jetstar destinations are included. And this is so because Jestar is a subsidiary of Qantas.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- Dragonair and Cathay have separate aticles because they are separate airlines, even though one is a subsidiary of the other. Scoot is separate from Singapore Airlines. Similarly, Jetstar destinations need to be in their own article. How do you think you'd go trying to combine these articles on the basis that one is a subsidiary? If I were to create a Jetstar destinations article, would you be OK with the Jetstar-only destinations being deleted from here?Mdw0 (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, of course.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Dragonair and Cathay have separate aticles because they are separate airlines, even though one is a subsidiary of the other. Scoot is separate from Singapore Airlines. Similarly, Jetstar destinations need to be in their own article. How do you think you'd go trying to combine these articles on the basis that one is a subsidiary? If I were to create a Jetstar destinations article, would you be OK with the Jetstar-only destinations being deleted from here?Mdw0 (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Qantas serving Paris
editCan anyone establish what airport in Paris they served. I am almost 100% sure it was Charles de Gaul. The airport part is left blank on the table. We have a ref that they served Paris in 2004 but it does not specify which airport was used. Here is the source showing Paris was served from the Flight Global archive: https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/2004/2004-09%20-%200299.html Any assitance would be of great help solving this dilema.CHCBOY (talk) 08:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Deletion
editHi everyone This article might get deleted soon. Is anyone against the mass policy of deletion of airline destination articles the Air NZ one has already gone. No warning given like many others. Does anyone want this to be preserved somewhere in an archive before it is too late? Regards CHCBOY (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Of course I want it preserved. As I told Beeblebrox, nobody informed the participants of WP:AIRLINE about the discussion.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Obviously, that’s not true [1]. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- And obviously you should restore all the deleted pages [2].--Jetstreamer Talk 22:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Obviously, that’s not true [1]. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
That would be very good if they can be restored to Main space. I see that the Jetstar one has gone also. These deletions were a real shock to many users on Wikipedia. CHCBOY (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- @CHCBOY: There's an ongoing discussion regarding this at WP:AN.--Jetstreamer Talk 19:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- @CHCBOY: You have an opportunity to voice your opinion here.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)