Talk:List of KLM destinations

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of KLM destinations article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 October 2015. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on May 15, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Aviation: Airlines

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the airline project.

KLM or KLM Cityhopper

Hi there, I have noticed several destinations in this list ( Berlin, Norwich ) which are routes operated by KLM cityhopper. Seperate lists for Cityhopper and KLM is a bit confusing. Do you think they should be merged? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TommyBoy3406 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Berlin route is operated by Cityhopper and KLM . —Preceding unsigned comment added by TommyBoy3406 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English names of KLM destinations

All the names of the destinations should be the English names, since this is the English wiki page. So, not Kyiv, but Kiev. If there are more than one way to right the name, please use the one that is used most commonly. Also refer to the corresponding wiki page, in English, if you doubt which spelling is the most used. Schalkcity (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kiev is latinisation of Russian way of calling the Ukrainian capital. When Ukraine gained its independence from the Soviet Union, it was proposed that in English Kyiv is used instead (being the latinisation of the Ukrainian pronunciation). It took some time, but several English speaking countries (e.g. Canada, USA and UK) officially adopted the new name. The old name is still in use though (like in your example). It becomes quite interesting when UEFA Champion League subtitles mention FC Dynamo Kyiv playing in Kiev. The situation is very similar to the Mumbai/Bombai case. You may imagine the politics surrounding this issue. For the non-believers: http://ukinukraine.fco.gov.uk/en/ - As has been clearly demonstrated, the official spelling of the word is in fact Kyiv. Andriy155 (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andriy155 (talk • contribs)

Ok, I agree. After some research I found out that both Kyiv and Kiev are used. The Ukrainian government officially changed the latinisation in 1995 and nowadays both writings are used. So Kyiv is appropriate in English. Only be aware that many people will not understand Kyiv. So what about making the destinations name Kyiv (Kiev) or Kyiv (formerly Kiev)?

For the Mumbai/Bombay case, it is not the same. The British changed the name into Bombay because they could not pronounciate Mumbai in the correct way. The Russians changed the name from Kyiv to Kiev to 'Russify' the Soviet Union, not because they could not pronounciate it. However, you are right, in both cases, an external party changed the name and now the names have been changed back to their original names. Schalkcity (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken regarding the India's case. I believe, you are right and it makes sense to have Kyiv (formerly Kiev), at least for the time being. --Andriy155 (talk) 22:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 3rd general guideline of the naming conventions for geographic names currently states: "The contents (this applies to all articles using the name in question): The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article." So, as long as the article on the city itself uses Kiev for its title, Kiev is the form that all other articles should use, including this one. — Besides, the name the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize (the core criterion of our naming conventions policy) is Kiev.

In any case, the naming issue itself should be discussed at Talk:Kiev/naming. If at some point discussion there leads to the article on the city being renamed to anything other than Kiev, that new name will be adopted in this article too, for consistency; but no before. - Best, Ev (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

City names including

Why remove the names of the cities for small countries? Bahrain International Airport is near Manama, Bahrain's capital. So state the name of Manama, just as in all other cases. The same in true for Singapore, Kuwait City and Luxembourg City. Schalkcity (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Istanbul Airport

Istanbul Airport is located in the European part of Turkey, so it is listed under 'Europe' instead of 'Asia'. Despite the largest part of Turkey is part of Asia. Schalkcity (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Riyadh

Since when does KLM Cargo fly to Riyadh airport? If someone saw an airplane of KLM Cargo recently on Riyadh airport, be aware that all KLM Cargo planes are currently operated by Martinair, but that the planes have not been repainted. Schalkcity (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, for your information in schedules Riyadh was appearing with KL coded flight numbers thats why it was added to destinations list, only sometime back it was changed to MP coded ones, so NOW its not a KL cargo destination, Montevideo and Sharjah still are KL coded flights in schedules http://www.af-klm.com/cargo/b2b/wps/portal/b2b/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4o3cwoGSYGZRgH6kRhi_phixj4IMV-P_NxU_SCgXKQ5UMjIJCRQ31s_QL8gNzQ0otzTEQAi8t6z/delta/base64xml/L0lDVE83b0pKN3VhQ1NZQSEvb01vZ0FFSVFoQ0VNWWhDR0lRSVNBQSEhLzRCMWljb25RVndHeE9VVG9LNzlZUWchIS83XzJfMjRUUS8zNA!!#7_2_24TQ look up Sharjah too.119.155.44.186 (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regions and Continents

You can add a column for Continent/Region thats allowed, but do not break up the table into small bits as was being done, the whole table should remain continuous.116.71.31.59 (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no sense to have one long table. It is not useful. By breaking it up in UN specified regions, it makes much more sense. Schalkcity (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concensus approved one long table keeping in mind the sense bit.116.71.4.234 (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is consensus to have a single table, please respect this. This has among other things been established at two featured list discussions and discussions at the project page. If you want to include regions, this can be done by adding another column. The whole point of using a table is to allow the reader to sort the table in accordance to the criteria they desire. By breaking the table up into multiple sections, it is impossible to sort the whole table as one. List of Braathens destinations and List of Dragonair destinations have both been past as featured lists, which means that the foremost expertise on lists on the project has reached consensus that they have an optimal layout and design. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else is now butting in and reverting my edit after I added the region column, which should have been done by the people who wanted the regions, dont know why I wasted my time.119.155.43.183 (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The regions section is named using UN convention names for the regions of the world. http://millenniumindicators.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm Stop editing these names to other names! Schalkcity (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Official country names vs. colloquial country names

According to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airlines/page_content, which exemplifies the use of country names through the List of Dragonair destinations featured article, official country names should be used in any destinations table, not common or colloquial ones. I therefore don't see the reason for continuously changing the official name “People's Republic of China” to the simply term “China”, which by the way is ambiguous.--Jetstreamer (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airlines/page_content says no such thing. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Per concensus of wikiproject airlines its decided official titles to be used only for China, Taiwan plus both the Congo's, no other country is to use them in destinations lists, not even the two Koreas and Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.155.59.74 (talk) 17:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Green entries of KLM Cargo

All of these 133 destinations are served by KLM Cargo, because the largest part of the capacity of KLM Cargo consists of belly freight, thus freight carried in the belly of passenger aircraft. Beside that, a part of the capacity of KLM Cargo consists of the the freight carried in the rear part of the 747 Combi aircraft. And finally, KLM has 4 full freighter aircraft, but their capacity is currently at 0% since they are all leased out to Martinair (and operated on Martinair's AOC). So the green entries simply mark a random few destinations served by Martinair Cargo. So I've removed the green labels. Schalkcity (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Istanbul, almaty, moscow are exclusive KLM cargo freighter routes from beginning they're not from MP network, they should be indicted in listing, the rest PVG, DEL, HKG, SIN are all code share routes of MP's network so no need to include those, maybe you find the green colour clashing with KL colours blue/grey thats why you find excuse to remove them :))), but they can be indicted by using some symbol, not colour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.155.59.74 (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the Bahrain vs. Manama use

Hi. I believe the use of Bahrain is more suitable than that of Manama, as there exists a single civil airport serving the entire country. Same applies for Singapore.--Jetstreamer (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KLM cityhopper

You should'nt merge destinations of two carriers if both have seprate articles including destination lists, you can however add a paragraph directing to the second airline article e.g for additional destinations see KLM Cityhopper, this can also be added at end of list as new section 'See also, I tried merging routes of some but its considered vandalism, air india group could do this but its not permitted by editors they revert such edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.155.59.74 (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

removing regions/continents column

What is the extra added info for the use of the regions (now: continents) column? Especially now that the column is renamed to continents, it does not really add important info. Now all destinations in Asia, from Tel Aviv to Manila, are considered 'the same' (i.e. Asia). My opinion: remove the whole column. Anybody against this? Schalkcity (talk) 09:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. Go ahead.--Jetstreamer (talk) 10:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, very confusing! I think just the city and country is good enough. Snoozlepet (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

revised list

Why is the list being revised, to include all former destinations? What was wrong with the old setup, where current (and future) destinations were in 1 list and the former (no longer served) destination in a separate section? 213.148.252.228 (talk) 12:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is done in order to homogenise the presentation for all table-formatted destination articles. Such modifications have been recently applied to Air France destinations and Air Canada destinations, just to mention two of them.--Jetstreamer (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... I get the idea... but wouldn't two tables be more useful / provide a better overview? Table 1: current and future destinations, table 2 former destinations? I don't know what the WP policy is, so if this format is the (new) WP policy, forget my questions. 213.148.252.228 (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My position is to keep a single table for both terminated and current destinations, but it is actually an ongoing discussion at the Wikiproject talk page. You can kindly post your opinion here. Regards.--Jetstreamer (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You realize that in the current table there are several terminated destinations (such as Sharjah and Penang among others) that were only served by KLM Cargo? 213.148.252.228 (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. It is stressed at the top of the article that the list includes destinations for all KLM subsidiaries. Regarding your concern, if you try to get to KLM Cargo you'll be actually redirected to the KLM article.--Jetstreamer (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jetstreamer, KLM today has announced that it will start flying to Lusaka from 15 May 2012, 3 times a week. This will be a direct and non-stop flight from Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. Can you include this info in the list? I don't want to mess up the table you are working on. I only have a reference in Dutch for the moment, but I'm sure that within a couple of hours also English refs will be available. 213.148.252.228 (talk) 11:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Also provided a reference in English.--Jetstreamer (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Olso is in Norway, not Sweden (in one of the two cases in the table Oslo is listed as Sweden, not Norway. 213.148.252.228 (talk) 14:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the background color of the hub and seasonal destinations (almost) similar? 213.148.252.228 (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see them similar?--Jetstreamer (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Penang used to have KLM passenger flights too before npt just cargo, Sharjah was served by Martinair Cargo with KLM code share on the service so its not really a KLM destination. 119.155.33.19 (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom

A discussion was started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines#UK_not_a_country on whether or not the United Kingdom should be considered a country or not. Please make any comments on that page. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 05:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arusha on KLM

Did KLM fly nonstop to Arusha, Tanzania at one time? I'm having trouble finding this info; a friend said he landed there in a 747 on an unimproved (unpaved) runway and I'm having a hard time believing that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.73.194.25 (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why mentioning the destination? It's not included in the table.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archived references not used in the article

Duclos, François (18 October 2012). "KLM lance une troisième route vers le Japon" (in French). Air Journal. Archived from the original on 5 April 2013. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)
"KLM launches scheduled service to Belfast (Northern Ireland), Krakow (Poland) and Montpellier (France)". KLM Royal Dutch Airlines. 6 January 2015. Archived 7 January 2015 at the Wayback Machine
"KLM Launches scheduled service to Colombia" (Press release). KLM. 25 July 2014. Archived from the original on 25 July 2014.
"KLM to Start Bilbao Service from late-May 2014". Airline Route. 8 January 2014. Archived from the original on 8 January 2014.
"KLM to launch scheduled service to Fukuoka" (Press release). KLM. 18 October 2012. Archived from the original on 18 October 2012.
Paylor, Anne (22 November 2012). "KLM to launch regional services from UK's Manston". Air Transport World. Archived from the original on 23 November 2012. The new service will begin operating April 2, 2013 using Fokker 70 jet aircraft, carrying up to 80 passengers.
"KLM: un Amsterdam Manston en avril 2013" [KLM: an Amsterdam–Manston service in April 2012 (2012-04)] (in French). Air Journal. 18 November 2012. Archived from the original on 20 November 2012.

--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading destinations table

A large number of destinations are actually former destinations. This remains unclear since colors at the KLM table do not cover entire rows. gidonb (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AIRLINE-DEST-LIST for the two formats agreed by consensus. This table is in one of them. I'm therefore removing the tag you added to the article.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jetstreamer. If the problem is with the policy (including guideline) and the conduct here is according to standing policy, then the discussion should be held elsewhere. Thank you for referring me to the relevant page! gidonb (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mention it.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Can someone add the flags in the countries section like TAROM, Saudia, Iran Air, and Ukraine International Airlines? As well as Air France, British Airways, Lufthansa, Korean Air, Delta Airlines, American Airlines, Air Canada, United Airlines, Swiss International Airlines and Emirates? 73.87.74.115 (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:AIRLINE-DEST-LIST regarding the inclusion of flags.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But Iran Air destinations did that. 73.87.74.115 (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency

There is a lot of talk here about correct names, yet the list is full of inconsistencies or mistakes otherwise.

First of all, it's been a long time since Burma/Birma changed to Myanmar. Not sure why this page is still behind.
If you mention Mulhouse, Freiburg and Basel for EuroAirport, then also mention Aachen for Maastricht-Aachen Airport. Or only mention Maastricht and Mulhouse.
Kilimanjaro is a mountain, not a city. Use Arusha instead.
Hull is no city. Use Kingston upon Hull instead, especially if you already used it for another airport.
Luxembourg City is just Luxembourg. This is different from Panama City, Mexico City, Kuwait City, Ho Chi Minh City and Guatemala City, where City, or the equivalent of it, is included in the official name.
Washington D.C. is not in Virginia. It has got added D.C. for a reason.
Montreal = Montréal
Freiburg = Freiburg im Breisgau
Frankfurt = Frankfurt am Main
Krakow = Kraków
Las Palmas = Las Palmas de Gran Canaria
Zurich = Zürich

Yes, this page is in English, and that does not mean that all punctuation marks disappear or that parts of the name go inexistent. In speaking language you may shorten the names, but in writing language keep it official.

And finally, please merge fields with the same name. There is no point in mentioning the United Kingdom 26 times or London 5 times. Otherwise, why don't you mention EuroAirport three times, Rotterdam-The Hague Airport two times or mention Germany for both Bonn and Cologne? So just merge it, that makes the list much more clearer and it has no influence on the sorting. And you can solve the state thing by leaving them out or add the abbreviation after the city name (i.e. Houston, TX). And if you merge the fields, it makes more sense to also link to the country pages, which in turn is consistent with the links to the city and airport pages. -- Hhl95 04:37, 26 October 2018 UTC

Regarding your latest point, WP:AIRLINE-DEST-LIST is clear about that: one country, one state, one city, and one airport per entry. As for the names, WP:COMMONNAME applies and in most of the cases names are spelled as they appear in supporting sources.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to remind you that the WikiProject is not a law set in stone. It is just a guideline. Therefore I think things should be discussable, without just referring to the WikiProject. In my mind, what we want is not a list that complies with all the guidelines. What we want, is a list that is consistent and clear, easy for everyone to use and read. I think that's the essence of Wikipedia, but if you have a different opinion, I'd like to hear that. In my opinion, the suggestions I did, make the list clearer and more consistent, and I think that is more important than non-binding guidelines. -- Hhl95 02:55, 30 October 2018 UTC

And I will like to remind you that Wikipedia works within a collaborative environment. If you think something can be improved you can raise your proposals at the appropriate Wikiproject to put them into consideration by the community. The proper project here is WP:AVIATION.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

rowspan

Earlier today I edited the table to improve readability, which was subsequently reverted by User:Jetstreamer with the message “No rowspan use per WP:AIRLINE-DEST-LIST guidelines”. However, that guide does not explicitly forbid the use of |rowspan="". What it says is:

Destination lists should always be sorted by country, not by city. They should also have the ability to be sorted by the reader.

The use of rowspan does not contradict this; elements are listed by default by country and every column of the table is sortable. I'd also like to point out that several similar pages (e.g. Air France destinations, Emirates destinations, Etihad destinations, Lufthansa destinations, Qatar Airways destinations) also use rowspan. Furthermore, the version prior to my edits already uses rowspan (see EuroAirport Basel Mulhouse Freiburg, Cologne Bonn Airport, and Rotterdam The Hague Airport).

In short, I think the explanation given for the revert is unsatisfying and I thus hope my edits will be reinstated. Michael! (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you mentioned, the use of rowspan in this specific page was applied to multi-city airports, not to countries. Regarding the use in other articles, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. My suggestion is to start this discussion at WT:AIRLINE in order to gain a wider audience for the discussion.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick reply. Yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS exists, yet that's not a valid argument for reverting. To clarify, I don't intend to change styleguide for all airlines. If something contradicts a manual of style, then yes, it ought to be reverted. My point is that in this case, I sincerely believe my edits do not contradict the styleguide, and therefore shouldn't have been reverted. Michael! (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In WP:AIRLINE-DEST-LIST, there are several entries for United States (California) and each one of them repeats the country and the state, i.e. no rowspan use.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that rowspan isn't used in that foo example table over there. However, that section also cites two featured lists as examples: List of Braathens destinations and List of Dragonair destinations; the former doesn't use rowspan, the latter does. The styleguide does not explicitly say anything about the use of rowspan; assuming it is therefore forbidden seems wrong.

Clear vandalism or disruptive edits are good reasons for reverting (WP:DOREVERT). My edits were neither; a decent justification for reverting in this case is missing. I believe I'm repeating myself. Michael! (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The use of rowspan in List of Cathay Dragon destinations (the article is no longer named List of Dragonair destinations and has been renamed since the guidelines in WP:AIRLINE-DEST-LIST were last updated), was implemented back in November 2018 [1]. The guidelines were also written prior to this change. If I had watchlisted this article I had also reverted the changes, as I do (and will do) until a change in the guidelines is reached by consensus.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the styleguide says nothing explicitly about the use of rowspan. I interpret that it is allowed, you assume it is forbidden. Perhaps we should request a third opinion.

Besides, even if rowspan would be clearly forbidden, you should only have reverted that part, not the other edits (e.g. separating Guernsey and Jersey from the UK), see WP:DONTREVERT. Michael! (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You interpret what is convenient to you. The example including United States (California) in the first column and in several rows cannot be more explicit.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do; as do you, no offence.

The examples given are just that: examples. I can see several differences between the KLM destinations table and the example table; that doesn't mean either is wrong. Being overzealous is unconstructive. I disagree with you per WP:ROWN.

Anyway, I've requested a third opinion to judge whether the use of rowspan is a valid ground for reverting this to this. Michael! (talk) 10:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What we are discussing is the use of rowspan in airline destination lists. You can reinstate the other modifications anytime you want.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request (Disagreement about whether the use of rowspan is a valid ground for reverting. USER Michael!):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on List of KLM destinations and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Dig _deeper ^talk 17:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few general observations to start with.

@Michael! and Jetstreamer: have both kept the discussion on the talk page reasonably civil. Though it was starting to become "editor-focused" rather than "article-focused" by both editors near the end. The timing for the 3rd opinion request was probably about right.

If I understand things correctly, Micheal!'s points were

1. The reason for the revert (WP:AIRLINE-DEST-LIST guidelines) was not valid.

2. The revert was inappropriate, as it had the effect of undoing other edits.

3. That there is a precedent for this on both within this page and on other similar pages.

If I understand things correctly, Jetstreamer's points were

4. WP:AIRLINE-DEST-LIST guidelines still apply here

5. Precedent does not always justify change

6. The revert was justified because this was a significant change and there was no consensus on the talk page, and the other editor should be responsible for replacing the non-contentious edits.

Have I summarized your points fairly? Please respond below and I will continue with my assessment.

@Dig deeper: Thank you for your quick reply. That other edits were reverted is of minor importance. The main point of disagreement is whether the use of rowspan is indeed forbidden. Michael! (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dig deeper: Your understanding of the discussion is correct to me.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

Firstly, WP:DOREVERT and WP:OTHERSTUFF are essays (not policies nor guidelines). Essays are not authoritative. They can be used to succinctly express your opinion, but often do not provide much support to an argument. For many essays, there is a counter essay, sometimes the counter point is within the essay (for example WP:SSEFAR).

Secondly, I would agree (so far) with #1 that the revert reason was not valid. Until Jetstreamer can provide a specific quote, I would disagree with point #4. I could not find evidence for the argument at that guideline. This has prevented productive discussion and seems to have lead to frustration. WP:Mea culpa perhaps applies here.

I would disagree with point #3 #2 and parts of point #6. After looking through the changes, it would have been quite time consuming and onerous for Jetstreamer to sort through every change that was made and change each revision back one at a time. A revert for disagreeable content seems to make practical sense here. It probably would have been wise for Michael! to be bold BUT make small edits and wait and see how the community responds rather than spend so much time only to have it reverted. Consensus on the talk page is not necessarily required but is sometimes worth considering when planning to invest quite a bit of time to make several changes, especially with regards to formatting.

I would agree with both points #3 and points #5. Here's the rub, it seems there's a precedent for either approach.

What is lacking, from both sides, is the answer to the question, how will this change (or lack of change) benefit the reader?

@Dig deeper: Firstly, so is that layout. Secondly, thanks for the confirmation. Thirdly, I think you mean #2 and #6, because you agree with #3 in your fourth paragraph; also, I did make separate edits: one for rowspan, one for Jersey, Guernsey, and Hong Kong, one for Bonaire, and one for Malpensa; I'm not sure how I could “make small edits” instead. Fourthly, yes, there is.

Finally, my reasons for implementing rowspan:

It makes the table easier to read for people (cf. this with this).
If people want the country repeated in every row, they can simply sort by country (one click) and all rowspans disappear. (The reverse is not true.)
It saves space (less duplication).
Several other, similar pages use rowspan (precedent) and I think they look at least as good (subjective).

Basically, I considered it to be an uncontroversial improvement, so I was surprised to see my edits reverted. Afterwards I started this discussion here, because if rowspan would be a valid reason for reversion now, then it could happen again, here and elsewhere. Michael! (talk) 08:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dig deeper: I certainly agree with Michael! in that the use of rowspan saves HTML space (which is not a minor point), and they are also right in pointing out that sorting the tables by country will make each entry appear as if each row was populated with the same country name. I must admit that after this discussion both of you have changed my mind. Michael! is free to reinstate the edits in question. My next concern is: should we modify the tables in WP:AIRLINE-DEST-LIST?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael!: Thanks for spotting my error, I corrected it above.

I'm glad I could help with coming to a consensus. Thank you both for your cooperation and candor. It wasn't my intent to change anyone's mind. My intent was quickly address the peripheral issues and to understand the motive for the change.

@Jetstreamer: If you are considering making global changes (applying rowspan to all airline dest list pages), it would probably be wise to modify the examples on WP:AIRLINE-DEST-LIST and explicitly state that using rowspan for country (and/or city, or whatever else) is the style guideline. Maybe a link to this discussion in the talk pages.Dig _deeper ^talk 22:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dig deeper: Thank you for your time and help, I appreciate it! @Jetstreamer: Thank you for your last reply, I'm glad we're no longer in disagreement. As for your final question, including a bullet point “The use of rowspan is optional” or something similar under Table format won't hurt, and maybe use rowspan for the Californias and Floridas in the second table—but not the first—to show both are valid options. Michael! (talk) 07:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dig _deeper ^talk 17:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flight Suspensions

The meaning of "suspend" is something that is temporarily prevented from continuing, so there is nothing unclear about the use of the word. The fact that a service to a destination is suspended does not make it any less encyclopedic, especially in a context where the suspensions are notable. I agree these lists should not fall afoul of Wikipedia is not a guide, but the suspensions comply with the policy. Also, we must be mindful that the list already includes destinations which are not served yet too, or are "temporarily" yet to begin - and it would be better to ensure that the list is neutral. Reverting edits hastily does not lend itself to collaboration, so I've inserted the current scheduled resumption dates so that there is no ambiguity. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]