Talk:Melbourne Airport/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Qatar Airways

QR have not announced that they will be flying into Melbourne. They've only won the right to do so. Wait until QR make an announcement, don't jump the gun. --splashmo 05:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

O'Connor Airlines?

Why has O'Connor airlines been removed? Has it stopped flying, or just stopped flying to Melbourne? And if it has, then perhaps O'Connor Airlines should be updated. -- Adz|talk 06:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

O'Connor are still operating between Mt. Gambier and Melbourne, according to their website.--splashmo 05:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Turns out that O'Connor is under Qantas Terminal - their flights depart from the same area as QantasLink and they are a Qantas Partner Airline. It's a little misleading I know, having Terminal 1 listed as the Qantas Terminal.--splashmo 05:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

To add to this discussion, O'Connor is now no more, being declared bankrupt. MEBpilot (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

United Airlines.

United Airlines flies to Melbourne from Los Angeles Via Sydney. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:66.143.117.237 (talk • contribs)

That's true. However, the concensus here in WikiProject Airports is that one should only list the destination city in which a passenger can dis/embark. UA flies via Sydney, that is correct, but a passenger cannot ride on UA from MEL and disembark at SYD. UA has no rights to transport domestic passemgers, therefore we do not list SYD as a destination of UA from MEL. Elektrik Blue 82 21:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Indian Airlines

A thread on another website about this: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=449023 -- Chuq 04:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, a forum isn't an encyclopedic source for the information. /ɪlεktʃɹɪk bluː/ 20:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
That wasn't my point - I just linked that since there was discussion about this article happening off-site. My point was that valid information was being removed, and even when being added by many different people, no-one reverting thought that it was possible it may have been correct! A 10 second google news search would have found a valid source. -- Chuq 01:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I did not imply that that was your point. Regarding the source, it is a policy here in Wikipedia that the editor that adds new information has the burden of providing the source. Thus, do not expect others to go out of their way and confirm information that was added by other editors. See WP:SOURCE. Cheers. /ɪlεktʃɹɪk bluː/ 15:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm aware of the policy, but newbies may not be, and to them it may look like they are being bitten. It probably would have been easier to add {{fact}}. -- Chuq 23:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, true. I have to agree. I'll keep that in mind next time. The only thing frustating though is that sometimes adding {{fact}} does nothing; the newbie editor doesn't add the required citations. /ɪlεktʃɹɪk bluː/ 23:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I can see both sides as well - in the thread linked above, I suggested that they check the edit history if their edits have been removed, but I don't think any of them did! -- Chuq 00:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Just to let yas know, IPs could also change too (even on Broadband/cable), Also there are users that may still be on dialup, thus the varied IPs may be only 2 or 3 users. There are one or two out there that have had a history looking at the contribs. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 00:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Qatar Air

Yes, as many of us know via the newspaper, Qatar Air has just been approved daily flights to an Australian City, however Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I know one of the IP editors is a poster from the Skyscrapercity forum, and I ask, please do not add them on untill they officially announce the start date, as once again, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball for unconfirmed events. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 15:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi there,

Very true, wikipedia isnt a crystal ball. In regards to Qatar Airways and their flights to MEL, Qatar Airways has confirmed and intended for years to make Melbourne their first destination in Australia during the Victorian Premier, Steve Bracks visit to Doha a couple years back. Here is my source.

[1]

best regards. JU580 09:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Terminal 4 at MEL

Im wondering where the information has been received for a fourth terminal, especially domestic has come from. And besides, the only airline listed, Tiger Airways is providing a flight originating at Singapore, which certainly aint domestic.JU580 18:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a disused 'Domestic Express' terminal at the (southern?) end, past the VirginBlue Terminal. I have photos of it. It was used around 2001 by Impulse anirlines and Virgin Blue before the collapse of Ansett. It had 5 gates and was construced using demountable buildings. It was very similar to the original VirginBlue terminal at Sydney Airport, east of the old Ansett Terminal (T2?). Last time I was at Melbourne airport it was still there and appeared to be mothballed. I imagine it wouldn't take much to bring it back to life. I can provide photos if anybody is interested. -- Adz|talk 02:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Where have you been, JU580? Tiger Airways has just launched an offshoot for domestic destinations in Australia, using the name Tiger Airways Australia, TT. Melbourne Terminal 4 is TT's main base. Sources: [2],[3] --Zack2007 02:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Adz, i think i know what your talking about. Is it connected to the airport building?

Zack2007, At the time i wrote the comment, all was knwon was Darwin and it seemed to be originating from Singapore. I knew they intended to open routes in the domestic Australian market. JU580 22:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Melb Airport Hotels

I have removed it from the article as it's unsourced and also Wikipedia isn't a travel guide. Bidgee (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ground/Cargo Handlers in airline listing

Before I do it myself, want agreement that Ground/Cargo handlers should NOT be in the airline listing as they do not operate any aircraft or don't operate to MEL... examples Menzies and DHL. First is only a ground/cargo handler and second is a cargo carrier but doesn't operate (except VERY rarely) into MEL they use capacity on other aircraft. I propose they be removed from the list. 58.104.106.215 (talk) 05:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Seconding this... ANZ Cargo should also be removed from the list as they do not operate their own freighters, they commonly use those of Atlas Air (listed seperately). MEBpilot (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

ANZ simply use Atlas Air's aircraft (ACMI), ANZ have their own cargo division, along with their own cargo service. It is listed in the schedule as an ANZ operated flight, using a 747 Freighter. This isn't DHL using the cargo hold of a Qantas aircraft, it is ANZ operating their own flight. It might be appropriate to list it under Atlas Air, but it certainly should be listed. Mvjs (talk) 06:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Pacific Blue to not be listed under Virgin Blue

Whilst I can understand where this originated from they are actually two seperate companies entirely and they have head offices in seperate countries and have aircraft registered in seperate countries. Only link between the two is that PB is owned outright by VB, but that is in the background... VB don't even handle PB flights in AUS... I suppose the same can be said for Jetstar. I don't know if it is accurate to list the airlines the way we have been, as apart from being owned by a common company (VB own PB & QF own JQ) they have little in common. 58.104.106.215 (talk) 05:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, but theres no such airline as VB and PB. But i've heard of the airlines DJ and DJ. Considering Pac Blue flights operate under the DJ code, whilst at the same time being owned outright by DJ. Pac Blue may have their offices in NZ, but since technically flights operate under DJ code, its still a full-owned and operated subsidiary. JQ on the other hand, is owned outright by QF, but has their own offices and flight code. So you could say JQ is technically a different airline. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 01:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
They do fly under different ICAO codes (VOZ, PBN). The 'DJ' IATA code simply indicates they are ticketed the same? \ / (talk) 23:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

I think it's fair to say this article meets the criteria for B class. Plenty of citations, supporting material, grammar, spelling and is now properly structured Mvjs (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Awards section

Isn't this a bit of WP:CRUFT, surely one can just check out all the awards http://www.melbourneairport.com.au/about_airport/awards.asp , most major airports around the world have won some sort of award...there are so many awards out there given out by so many organisations. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It's perfectly acceptable at other major airports, and the linked page has some omissions. In fact, some airports have a separate article in addition to discussing awards in the main article, e.g. KLIA Awards & Recognitions and Singapore Changi Airport awards and accolades. Mvjs (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Good article?

I think this article should be considered for good article status. Michellecrisp (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur, I think it's time for a nomination. Mvjs (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Certaintly has improved itself over time. Good job to the editors involved. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 02:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Done, I've nominated the article. Mvjs (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Melbourne Airport/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    The section Today has some occurrences of currently and other words that should simply be removed. I would recommend changing the header to Operations or the like. There are a few instances of overwikilinking, for instance Ansett in the terminal sections. CBD should be deabbreviated. Also change hyphen (-) to en dash (–) where appropriate; the en dash is used for stating betweens such as Sydney–Melbourne.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    The Public transport section lacks any references, as does two paragraphs in the terminal section.
    Wongm has done a good job with this (and he added that here but it seemed to have got reverted).
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Both incidents fail the guide at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/Page content. The amount of space used on new services seems quite large, and it is generally my impression from dissuasions that it is felt that these should stay inline in the destinations list. However, I cannot find any guide or policy on this, but I feel that it is overfocus in violation with the GA criteria. I would claim that services already started, and without starting dates announced should not be included, while those with dates simply go in the destination list.
    I feel that both incidents definitely meet the notability criteria set out in WP:AVIATION. Both incidents are extremely unusual circumstances, a hijacking in Australia is virtually unheard of and a mystery illness sending dozens of people to hospital at an airport is also unprecedented. The QantasLink hijacking also satisfies It is the result of military or terrorist action, including hijacking, against a civilian target.
    I would definitely agree that listing all service increases future, past and present is definitely unnecessary. I definitely believe that sourced, accurate prospective airlines/routes deserve to be there (and that has been discussed before). It's a question of keeping an archive of service increases. What about removing all increased services but keeping services that will increase in the future? Or would it be better to remove the whole service increases section? Mvjs (talk) 08:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
    You are correct about the incidents. There are obviously two different definitions on notability out there, and I seem to have picked the wrong one. I was wondering why a hijacking was not notable. But someone either has to fix the Airport/Page content page or mark it as obsolete. Concerning the inclusion of service entries, I would personally opt for a prose section, where important new services are included (thoughout the entire history of the airport). Take a look at the history section of Kristiansand Airport, Kjevik for an idea of how to write this sort of thing. Important services are mentioned, but small changes left out. Large sections of lists read a lot worse than prose. Arsenikk (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
    I definitely agree about the incidents, having those two conflicting lists has caught me up a few times. Anyway, I've converted the long new services section to prose, keeping the more significant services and simplifying some. How does that look? Mvjs (talk) 07:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
    Looks great Arsenikk (talk) 08:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    The list of awards seems excessive and causes a bias problem since it becomes and indiscriminate collection of awards; most airports have dozens of dubious awards, and I fail to see how the inclusion of this list helps to better understand the airport. Instead I would recommend that the most prominent be mentione, perhaps in prose rather than in list form.
    I've converted the awards section to prose. I've removed a few of the most insignificant awards, leaving what I feel is the more prominent ones.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    All the images have forced size tags. This is not a good idea, since it hinders accessibility and flexibility for users with special needs (either to force images larger or smaller). Please remove the size tags.
    Fixed.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I am placing the article on hold; fix the commented incidents and it will pass by a farthing. Good work so far and thanks for writing an interesting article on Wikipedia. Arsenikk (talk) 10:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations! You have just written a good article. All my comments have been seen to. As for further work on the article I am a little unsure where to point you, since it seems to me to be close to FA quality. My general advice is to get someone with good FA knowledge to copyedit, and perhaps add a little history between 1971 to 1994.
Thanks for your review and suggestions. Where would the best place be to find some FA copyeditors? Mvjs (talk) 08:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
There used to be a League of Copyeditors, but they just closed down. You'll just have to hunt around a bit to find people I think. Alternatively you can take a look at User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a—a very good resource in learning to copyedit. Arsenikk (talk) 08:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Reworked Intro

Hi, I reworked the introduction. Basically just reworded it to add some clarity and make the reading more fluid. \ / (talk) 10:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That certainly reads a lot smoother. Mvjs (talk) 10:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Recommended copyedit, considering the FA-Review currently in process:

Melbourne Airport (IATA: MEL, ICAO: YMML) is located 23 kilometres (14 mi) northwest of the Melbourne city centre. With two runways and four terminals, the airport supports over thirty airlines operating flights to more than sixty destinations. Melbourne is the second most common domestic destination in Australia,[citation needed] and is a major domestic hub for both Qantas and Virgin Blue airlines. Melbourne serves as the home base for Jetstar Airways and Tiger Airways Australia, as well as the cargo airlines Australian air Express and Toll Priority.[citation needed]

Melbourne is the second busiest airport in Australia, and has the most arrivals and departures of the four airports serving the Melbourne metropolitan area. It operates 24 hours a day, handling more domestic freight than any other airport in Australia. During 2007-08, the airport recorded nearly two hundred thousand aircraft movements, a volume of over 24 million passengers. The number and frequency of flights from Melbourne to Sydney make it the world's fourth busiest passenger air route, and the second most traveled in Asia.

Melbourne was the recipient[when?] of the International Air Transport Association's (IATA) Eagle Award, and two[when?] National Tourism Awards. Skytrax classifies the airport as a four-star airport, and the airport has repeatedly been reviewed as being in the top-five airports worldwide for passenger convenience.

Issues with the information contained in the lead-in have been tagged in this recommendation. I couldn't find a source for Toll Priority utilizing Melbourne as a hub or base (specifically, the Toll Priority and Toll Holdings websites as well as the Melbourne Airport website). --Born2flie (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Picture

My personal opinion for the infobox picture would be to have the United 747/Control tower in the infobox and put the Qantas Terminal picture in the history paragraph replacing the Hilton picture. The Hilton picture could be moved down the the other facilities paragraph or thereabouts. The QF terminal picture is a good picture of the terminal, but it appears customary (e.g. Singapore Changi and London Heathrow) to have a picture of the control tower in the infobox and I personally think it suits the infobox better than a picture of one terminal. How does that sound? Mvjs (talk) 11:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem with that - the tower picture is much better than the terminal picture. (No trees, glare, poles in the way.) If only that was a Qantas 747 though.. ;) \ / (talk) 12:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Done! \ / (talk) 13:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

CopyEdit

I've been through the article a few times, and although I see nothing worrying about it, I have absolutely no experience when it comes to copy-editing to FA quality. Maybe we should ask very nicely at WP: PRV? \ / (talk) 08:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You've done a great job copyediting so far! Too bad the League of Copyeditors doesn't exist any more - there must be some copyeditors at PRV though? There's no harm in asking, I guess! Mvjs (talk) 08:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I just realised there was a General Copyediting section. Sure, we should definitely ask now. Mvjs (talk) 10:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Asked. If all goes well, this article will be great! \ / (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just gone through the article and fixed a few lingering punctuation, grammar, and wording issues. There are, however, a plethora of passive-voice issues which run rampant through the article; since I am unfamiliar with the content, I didn't feel comfortable fixing these. If somebody with a bit of knowledge could go through and attribute some actions to their rightful owners, that'd be great. tanankyo (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

What's Left

Is there anything left that needs improvement? What's left to do? \ / (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As is in the To Do list at the top, it'd be good to have an expansion of the history of the airport between 1971 and 1994. Although MEL certainly doesn't have the length history of Perth Airport or Sydney Airport, it'd be good to fill in this gap. Other than that, I think the article is becoming more and more FA ready. Mvjs (talk) 10:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Good point. I'm struggling to find a single reference for this... have you had any luck? \ / (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Done some searching on the Riverina Regional Library website but nothing for the Airport. :( Bidgee (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I really haven't found any places that document the history of the airport, besides the annual reports, which usually include information about terminal, car park upgrades, etc. I've found a lot of documentation about Essendon's history which usually includes snippets about Tulla. (these are currently referenced in the article) Too bad the airport itself doesn't just have a history page… Mvjs (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
State and National Library also come up blank, as well as a few University libraries I queried. Is there a museum located at the airport? \ / (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so but I've not looked at all of the airport to find out though (It's huge area to cover). Bidgee (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

From my memories, until the 1990s the 3 main terminals were all separate rectangle boxes, joined by corridors at the corners. The international terminal departure floor had windows along the entire airside, with the current shopping semicircle added 1992 or so. The departure terminal was extended under the bridge sometime after that. The carpark was all single storey until the 1990s as well. I almost forgot about the observation decks - I think the Ansett side had one as well as well, the Qantas side one last opened for the A380 visit. All this doesn't really help without references though... Wongm (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

From that, it sounds like there's plenty of history to talk about. It's just a question of finding suitable sources. Mvjs (talk) 10:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


Airbus A380

I think this section needs to be cleaned up a little. For example "a second exit off the Tullamarine Freeway to reduce congestion on Airport Drive" may be a current piece of work going on at Melbourne airport, but I highly doubt it's going to only be Airbus A380 passengers using the second exit. I think that the fact that Qantas will be using Melbourne Airport as the first airport to see it's A380 is notable. The rest of the construction work (bar gates 9 and 11 upgrades) should be under it's own section of current work in progress.Harvyk (talk) 03:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of the page will be cleaned up in the next major copy-edit, which shouldn't be too far away. \ / (talk) 07:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the point of the "second exit of the Tullamarine et al." is that the A380 creates a large amount of patronage in a small space of time, and the roads were upgraded to handle that. I wouldn't disagree about putting that in another section specifically amount construction/development, but it is certainly not out of place where it currently is. The fact that MEL is the first destination for the QF A380 probably should be mentioned. Mvjs (talk) 07:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Map of Tullamarine

Why has the terminal map/layout picture been removed off the page? I thought it was quite a nice addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.4.73.180 (talk) 01:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree. Unfortunately, it was removed because of non-free logos being included in it. I have contacted the author of the image to request him to create one without the Qantas/Tiger/Jetstar logos, so it will be fine on the page. Hopefully we'll see it return soon. Mvjs (talk) 11:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Facilities

Even though food and retail facilities aren't included on many pages, maybe it could be mentioned briefly in the article. Aaroncrick (talk) 10:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Overlinking

There is far too much overlinking present in this article. I know it is a long article, but articles are linked far too many times. According to AWB, there are 82 different articles that have been linked at least twice. A major culprit is Qantas. In route developments alone, Qantas is linked three times. jackelfive (talk) 05:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I've had a first sweep at fixing this. I'll go over it a few more times. MvjsTalking 05:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll help out where I can as well. jackelfive (talk) 06:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
It's looking a lot better now. jackelfive (talk) 06:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

FA Standard

I know that you can't always compare different articles, but this article seems to be better than many FA quality articles. For example Israel's Ben Gurion International Airport is just one of these. Is the A class review still going? Aaroncrick (talk) 06:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes it appears so. The problems seem to be emanating from the prose. I am currently working on a new intro to address the A-Class reviewers concerns, but there is lots of copyediting that needs to be done throughout. \ / (⁂) 06:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
The A class review is still going and one editor has raised some concerns about the lead. I'm gonna get stuck into this article when I have a bit more time. Hopefully we'll be able to get this A class review closed soon and I hope to bring this article back to FAC in December, pending a lot of prose work. MvjsTalking 06:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Finished new intro. I tried to keep the existing links and references so if I missed any, add them post-haste! \ / (⁂) 06:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Re-reworked. User: Born2flie provided a great alternative that I have put into the article. \ / (⁂) 11:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
It's good to see all this work going on, and Born2flie is a very good reviewer, so it's good to see his advice being put to good use. I haven't been able to get anyone else to comment on the A-class, mostly because project members are inactive. I might be able to get a review out of someone else however, but it might be another week. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the vote of confidence. I was cleaning up some A-Class review requests and see that this one is still open. I appreciate the work that is being done on this article, but it may be time to close this one out and give it another look after the next round of tweaks. Please let me know how you feel about that. My concern is that we progress articles, but that those articles be a quality that will sustain review at the next level. The idea being adopted from WP:Military History, that an FAC-Review should find little or nothing to correct for the article to be assessed as FA-Class.
Having said that, I have some concerns with the placement of the Operations section. The section seems to be one that includes the most recent information about happenings at the airport and may change frequently. I question why this section precedes the recommended section Terminals and destinations of the Airports project's page content guideline? Move Operations after Terminals and before Accidents and incidents? The table that follows the Terminals section is nice, but appears to duplicate some of the information in the Terminals section. Could the destinations be combined with the Terminals to create the recommended Terminals and destinations section?
Keep up the good work and the cooperation, it is paying off in improving this article! --Born2flie (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've given the article a first, solid going over, fixing MoS issues, prose and other tweaks. I'd love any suggestions on how the article can be improved further. MvjsTalking 11:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a very solid copyedit got done today, this article is rolling along. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Aye, Full credit to User:Tanankyo. He left a few notes about the passive voice issue that we need to address. \ / (⁂) 04:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Prospective users and routes

Should this section be changed into prose? Although it's probably easier to read now. Aaroncrick (talk) 10:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be favour of keeping them in a list. It's like putting the Airlines and destinations table in prose. Some things make sense in prose, some things should be in lists and tables. MvjsTalking 10:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

FA?

Is the article going to again be a FA nomination? I can't think of anything that would improve the article, although the lead could be possibly extended to 3 paragraphs. Aaroncrick (Tassie Talk) 05:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I definitely think the lead should be extended to three paragraphs. But not much has changed since the previous candidacy, so I would be hesitant to re-nominate the article. However, I remain committed to bringing the article back to FAC. MvjsTalking 08:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Airlines, terminals and destinations

I've got an idea for combining the airlines and destinations section with the terminals section. This was done in the London-Heathrow article until everyone got in the put airlines and destinations in tables craze. I propose combining the paragraph on the terminal with the airlines and destinations of the respective terminal. I think it would be best to have those airlines and destinations in bullets rather than in five separate tables. What does everything think about this idea? MvjsTalking 09:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Official opening

We say that John Gorton opened it on 1 July 1970. But this photo from The Age suggests the date was 9 July, and the person cutting the ribbon was his wife, Bettina Gorton. Can we clear this up? -- JackofOz (talk) 05:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

A380 Emirates and Singapore?

Emirates and Singapore Airlines both havn't confirmed that they will be flying the A380 to Melbourne yet so shouldnt it say something about them not confirming it yet?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwhistle (talk • contribs) 04:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

These dates and expectations are supported by citations/references. [4][5][6] The last one listed there was originally published in The Australian but it seems to have disappeared on their website. I'll see if I can locate the original article on The Australian website. However, it is reproduced on that site. Hopefully that clears up any concerns you have. MvjsTalking 08:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Estimated prices for links to the CBD?

Does anyone want to post an average or an estimated taxi fare from the CBD to the Airport or vice versa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XQx (talk • contribs) 05:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a guide: these sort of things belong on Wikitravel. If you personally need to know this sort of information, a taxi fare calculator is found on the Melbourne Airport website. MvjsTalking 07:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Aviation weather links

Canadian and American airports generally contain a link to an aviation weather source in their external link section. Why should airports in this country be different?DSatYVR (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Prospective users and routes

Hi all,

Just wanted to know why the Prospective user and routes have vanished from Melbourne airport? It is always very interesting to see which airlines/routes may start.

Please add back..

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.211.240 (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the Prospective user and routes should be added back. Who deleted it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliz2009 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Access

Would be nice if the section 'Access' could be expanded. I'm sure there'd be interest in finding out whether taxi or bus is more economic when travelling into the CBD. Schwede66 00:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


Avalon Airport section

There has been an edit war whether the section on Avalon airport should be included in the article. I have protected the page for one day so that there can be some discussion, rather than continuous edit warring. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the system of air travel for Melbourne may be worthy of a wikipedia article, but that each single airport of Melbourne individually is not.
It would be really handy if there were some information about what flights typically go to what airports. Are some of the airports only for freight, or for private light aircraft? In particular, when one books a domestic ticket to/from melbourne on any of the usual commercial airlines, it would be notable whether the ticket invariable goes to the same airport (or whether intending parties need to be cautious not to end up attending the wrong airport from one trip to the next)?
Currently the article is like an advertisement for one commercial entity. There are major sections devoted to individual terminals, but I don't think those are actually notable, and there seem to be not even a link to another page with information about the other airports. I suggest renaming the article "Melbourne Airports" (note: plural) and restoring the section on Avalon airport. Cesiumfrog (talk) 06:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Rail link

Removed "The main reason a rail link is needed is because of the future tourist expansion. People from all over the world whose english is not very good would find difficulties getting into the city." -- seems to be a personal and emotive view rather than anything based on fact. Mwyres (talk) 04:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Early Melbourne Airport Terminal.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Early Melbourne Airport Terminal.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

When opened in 1970 two 747s could not be parked at adjacent bays...

Tullamarine Airport was designed with 707s in mind and by the time it opened in 1970, two 747s could not be parked at adjacent bays! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.114.105.101 (talk) 14:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Excess photographs

We have a large number of photographs of aircraft which show nothing useful of the airport itself. I suggest that we delete maybe six of them keeping the first one showing an aircraft with the ramps (QANTAS). The rest could be almost any airport anywhere and add nothing but bandwidth demand. Comments? Ex nihil (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.airport-technology.com/projects/melbourne/
    Triggered by \bairport-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,


I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Melbourne Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.


This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.



Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,


I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Melbourne Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.


This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,


I have just added archive links to 18 external links on Melbourne Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).


This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,


I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Melbourne Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).


This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,


I have just modified 10 external links on Melbourne Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).


This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Melbourne_Airport/Archive_1&oldid=1170275217"