Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 16
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
Should the nearest city be listed or the biggest one size and population wise or the most popular one even if small and far? as in case of East Midlands region, Derby is closest but Leicester is biggest population wise and the farthest, Nottingham is in between with with a sligghtly lowr population than Leicester, which of the three is more popular a destination? 139.190.175.128 (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Typically the nearest city, no matter size, should be listed as the location. You can mention in the intro paragraph that the airport serves the larger city in the area. For instance, in the case of CVG, it is located in Hebron, Kentucky, however, it serves Cincinnati, Ohio. Stinger20 (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- In the future, I think a template could be created for the talk pages of airport articles with commercial service that would provide a consensus of what it should be called in destination tables. Discussion about the city name would then be on the talk page of the airport article, with the template updated based on consensus. The template could provide a central notification page that could be watched to alert project members to the discussion with a parameter
|under_discussion=that would be changed when there is ongoing discussion about the city name. The template would have a minimum four parameters:|name=for the name of the airport in destination tables,|under_discussion=could be set to yes if name is under discussion (explained earlier),|discussion_link=would be a link to the archived discussion(s) about the name (it should support multiple discussions, eg.|discussion_link1=,|discussion_link2=, etc.),- and
|note=for a brief explanation about the consensus (if necessary). AHeneen (talk) 03:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Request for comment on terminal information in airline and destination tables
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the terminal information column be removed from all airline and destination tables at airport articles? -- Whats new?(talk) 02:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Survey
NOTE: This section is for indicating support or opposition only. Discuss or replies should be made in the next section.
- Oppose removal: I would keep the information provided there is a source for the information, as it is often the case for large airports which several terminals. It gives an indication of how airport is organized in term of allocation of terminals by level of confort, facility of correspondances between airlines and alliances. This information could be also summarized in a encyclopedic textual format but having the list is also easier for the reader to interpret any text attached and in case of any changes information will be more precise. Wykx (talk) 10:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support removal: this information can and should be mentioned elsewhere in the article, and can be found on airport and travel websites. I would also like to take this opportunity to bring up the conflicting information that can be found here[1], where the lead paragraph and bullet #16 are conflicting. Garretka (talk) 12:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support removal.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support removal: unencylopedic info. --Bouzinac (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose removal: Serves a purpose in demonstrating how airlines are grouped at various airports with more than one terminal, particularly in certain contexts such as airline alliances. Doesn't breach NOTAGUIDE in my mind, given specific gate info isn't included. Train station articles commonly list platform arrangements (Willowbrook/Rosa Parks, Stadium, Central, Waterfront, Promenade, etc) which is comparable to terminals. -- Whats new?(talk) 23:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support removal: Largely unreferenced and nearly always un-referencable and absolutely questionable under WP:NOTTRAVEL.Andrewgprout (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support removal: Per my arguments below, WP:NOTTRAVEL, but I still hold that we should include the information SOURCED in an more encyclopedic form. Stinger20 (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support removal: Per Andrewgprout's comment above. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose removal: I agree with earlier said comments that terminal information can indicate how an airport is organized. From the way I understand the WP:NOTTRAVEL policy, I feel that listing the terminals and concourses is perfectly fine according to WP:NOTTRAVEL. We aren't writing about our experiences during travel and we aren't mentioning distant landmarks, nor are we saying the price of goods; which I feel is the 3 big bullet points of said policy. --KDTW Flyer (talk) 02:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support removal: As per WP:NOTTRAVEL. The terminals, to my mind, do not provide any indication as to how an airport is organised. Look at Toronto Pearson International Airport#Airlines and destinations. What does that tell me about the way the airport is set up? Why is a particular airline at a particular terminal. Both 1 and 3 have cross border, domestic and international flights. You can find out why the airlines are grouped like that further up the page in the Toronto Pearson International Airport#Terminals section where it can be better explained. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support removal: Based on WP:NOTTRAVEL and the reasons articulated above. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support removal: strikes me as superfluous and un-encyclopaedic content that adds nothing to readers' understanding of the subject. GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support removal; mainly as we are not a travel guide. MilborneOne (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support removal- summoned by bot. I supported the earlier decision to maintain the list of destinations at each airport, since I found a site that listed the changes daily, but don't really see similar value in maintaining the list of terminal numbers for each airline. I'm familiar with WP:NOTTRAVEL, but am interested in exceptions where Wikipedia can offer something of specific value that no one else can. If you are trying to determine if you can get to a certain location from a particular airport, then having the destination info is quite valuable. The only other way to get it is through trial and error on the travel sites (or call a travel agent!). I personally have tried to book flights on Jet Blue by selecting endpoints only to learn that the airport pairs I selected have no interconnecting service. I don't see a similar use case demonstrating the utility of knowing what terminal you are flying from until you book your flight, because at that point you will be given all the terminal and gate info by the airline when you travel. There just doesn't seem to be enough value for the maintenance effort required. Another way of looking at it is to flip things around. Instead of having just a list of terminals at each airport, why wouldn't you be able to make a similar argument to have a list of terminal numbers (in addition to the airports served) for each of the airline articles? For example, you'd have to also agree that it made sense to add terminal numbers to this table of British Airways destinations. There are already five ref date errors, which no one has bothered to fix. Therefore, it does not seem to be as useful or necessary to have the terminals numbers. The other arguments in favor don't sway me. Because most airport alliances are already listed somewhere, knowing the terminal groupings doesn't help as much upon deeper inspection. Timtempleton (talk) 05:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support per WP:NOTTRAVEL, unencyclopedic. Undue level of detail. (invited by bot) Jojalozzo (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support removal but needs clarification This RFC would most likely get interpreted as forbidding ever including such. North8000 (talk) 13:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support per Tim's argument. Difficulties in maintain accuracy, etc. they see me 'troling for RfCs L3X1 (distant write)
Discussion
Following on from a previous RfC here, there was a silent consensus to remove the terminal information column from airline and destination tables at airport articles, such as seen at this diff at Dubai International Airport. A support to remove this column would establish a clear consensus to apply the change to all airport articles with such a table. An opposition to remove the column would provide clear consensus that the column serves a worthwhile purpose and should be permissible at articles. -- Whats new?(talk) 02:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Garretka, thank you for noting the contradiction at WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. It appears that was added after our weak consensus was formed as part of the previous RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables. I've removed bullet #16 until we come to consensus in this RfC. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for removing the bullet, I added that quite a while ago during the original "consensus". I should have removed it! Stinger20 (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Wykx, could you please explain what you mean by, "level of confort, facility of correspondances between airlines and alliances"? I don't really understand what this means. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Terminals have been built at different times in history or for different purposes and then have different level of confort. If two airlines are in the same terminal the facility of correspondance is improved. If you have to switch in Kuala Lumpur or in Paris between terminals, it is almost as if you were not in the same airport. Thus it is interesting to know which airline/flights benefit from which level of confort and connexion. Wykx (talk) 11:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Garretka and Andrewgprout, the fact that information is sourced in not against introducing the information. Actually it is the reason why the information can be properly added. If there is no source, it shouldn't be added. Wykx (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- WykxI suspect you have misunderstood the point I was making - my point was exactly as you appear to agree - No available source - shouldn't be added. Mostly the existing terminal information is not reliably sourced.Andrewgprout (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Just because there aren't references within tables currently doesn't mean they don't exist and could not be added. Sourcing terminal information should be possible in almost every case. -- Whats new?(talk) 21:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Even if such sources exist that would pass WP:RS and are publicly available on the open Web or through library databases (which I doubt), would you be willing to volunteer the 40 hours per week it would take to keep such information current with citations to sources acceptable under WP:RS? Most Wikipedia airport articles are already poorly sourced, but at least the initiation or discontinuation of service between two airports is likely to result in coverage in the news media. Moving airlines between terminals is much less likely to result in such coverage. For example, I just recently learned about the move of American Eagle from Terminal 6 to Terminal 5 at LAX as a result of a gate swap with Delta, which actually happened about a year ago, but did not lead to any news articles at the time. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Just because there aren't references within tables currently doesn't mean they don't exist and could not be added. Sourcing terminal information should be possible in almost every case. -- Whats new?(talk) 21:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
CambridgeBayWeather: The Toronto terminals are separated by the 3-minutes LINK Train as mentioned in the Toronto Pearson International Airport article. The Toronto Pearson International Airport#Terminals section gives some indications and general principles on airlines repartition which are necessary. But the section doesn't include all the airlines and illustrates perfectly the explanation given. Wykx (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- That's the point. The body of the article gives the information but the template does not. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk),
Sunasuttuq 17:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Actually that's not true. The body doesn't list every airline within every terminal. The table can handle such information much better. -- Whats new?(talk) 21:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that the body lists all the airlines and we already agreed that the information should be in the table in the RfC above. Wykx said that "It gives an indication of how airport is organized in term of allocation of terminals" and KDTW_Flyer said "that terminal information can indicate how an airport is organized." Those statements are what I disagree with. In the example I gave the table list which terminals are used by which airline but not why. The reason the airline use that particular terminal is covered in the body of the article. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm not following your comment there. Having the terminal number in the table provides a quick reference guide and not an explanation, you are right. But I do not understand the harm in having the terminal within the table, and the explanation in terminal sections above. Those editors saying remove terminal info because of NOTTRAVEL yet advocating terminal information in prose form elsewhere are displaying quite the double standard. Tables are supposed to provide information in a quick, easy to read format. I still see no reasonable argument against terminal information. -- Whats new?(talk) 23:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Whats new? Only WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:PRIMARY, WP:V, WP:OR all of these things together attempt to keep Wikipedia an encyclopedia - Encyclopedias are a tertiary source of information - in simple terms this means that they collect and describe already predigested information in a concise form. Any terminal discussion should be based on and referenced to already published in WP:SECONDARY sources such as those in magazines or trade journals. Timetables and Airport websites are WP:PRIMARY resources and should be used only to keep the secondary sources honest not by themselves. This is why the Terminal information (and in my opinion other information commonly found in Airport articles) are very very problematic and stick out like a sore thumb when compared to other parts of Wikipedia. The prose example above is exactly what you would expect in an encyclodedia.Andrewgprout (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Whats new? When I say adding the information to a paragraph I am talking about general overview's like Delta owns Concourse B, all SkyTeam airlines operate from Terminal 3, LLCs use Terminal 2, ect. I think the listing of every airline and which terminal is a) not notable and b) acts too much like a travel guide. In addition, its a table to demonstrate the extent of service at an airport, the terminal listing is not really related to the original purpose of the tables. Stinger20 (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- In response to Andrewgprout you seem to be confusing a lack of sources with the absence of sources in the articles. If they were reliably sourced, would you still oppose their inclusion? If so, why? To Stinger20 I agree the prose form is good but I don't comprehend the argument that terminal information isn't notable and breaches NOTTRAVEL yet every destination is fine. One could make a very similar argument that every airport served denotes a travel guide and every flight between two airports are not notable. Your comment about tables demonstrating extent of service also doesn't add up to me - why does including terminal information not also show the extent of service? Why can't all destinations served by an airport be listed in prose form? At DXB for example, is it not notable that only two airlines use the largest terminal in the world? Why is it not pertinent to clearly show where each airline is housed, in addition to more contextual and detailed information about specific terminal buildings in prose form elsewhere. -- Whats new?(talk) 00:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Listing terminal and destinations are completely different. For instance, if you are looking to book a ticket, looking at a Wikipedia destination table is not going to help you. You book a plane ticket primarily based off price and schedule, simply listing the destinations served by an airline at an airport does not help "guide" a traveler. They do not tell you the schedule, frequency, aircraft, seats available, ect. The list of destinations provides summarized information about the extent of service a particular airport receives (We could list frequencies, aircraft used, gates, schedules, but that would violate WP:NOTTRAVEL). Whereas, a list of which airlines service which terminal(s) is very useful for a traveler and is an essential piece of information that fliers look at travel guides for, such as airport websites, terminal signs, and airport question forums. A paragraph as I described above (notable assignments, airlines owning concourses, ect) would not be helpful to a traveler, but instead provide information about a specific terminal to a researcher/reader of Wikipedia. Stinger20 (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- In response to Andrewgprout you seem to be confusing a lack of sources with the absence of sources in the articles. If they were reliably sourced, would you still oppose their inclusion? If so, why? To Stinger20 I agree the prose form is good but I don't comprehend the argument that terminal information isn't notable and breaches NOTTRAVEL yet every destination is fine. One could make a very similar argument that every airport served denotes a travel guide and every flight between two airports are not notable. Your comment about tables demonstrating extent of service also doesn't add up to me - why does including terminal information not also show the extent of service? Why can't all destinations served by an airport be listed in prose form? At DXB for example, is it not notable that only two airlines use the largest terminal in the world? Why is it not pertinent to clearly show where each airline is housed, in addition to more contextual and detailed information about specific terminal buildings in prose form elsewhere. -- Whats new?(talk) 00:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm not following your comment there. Having the terminal number in the table provides a quick reference guide and not an explanation, you are right. But I do not understand the harm in having the terminal within the table, and the explanation in terminal sections above. Those editors saying remove terminal info because of NOTTRAVEL yet advocating terminal information in prose form elsewhere are displaying quite the double standard. Tables are supposed to provide information in a quick, easy to read format. I still see no reasonable argument against terminal information. -- Whats new?(talk) 23:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that the body lists all the airlines and we already agreed that the information should be in the table in the RfC above. Wykx said that "It gives an indication of how airport is organized in term of allocation of terminals" and KDTW_Flyer said "that terminal information can indicate how an airport is organized." Those statements are what I disagree with. In the example I gave the table list which terminals are used by which airline but not why. The reason the airline use that particular terminal is covered in the body of the article. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Actually that's not true. The body doesn't list every airline within every terminal. The table can handle such information much better. -- Whats new?(talk) 21:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think Andrewgprout is trying to say that, generally, terminal information is not found in secondary sources, but in primary sources - which are not highly preferred at Wikipedia.
"I don't comprehend the argument that terminal information isn't notable and breaches NOTTRAVEL yet every destination is fine." While I personally continue to have issues with the 'Airlines and destinations' tables (I started that previous RfC), the destinations to which a person can fly from an airport are much more notable than terminal information. They also provide an idea of an airline's presence at an airport. (I don't see how terminal information does.) The fact that a person can fly from Heathrow to major cities all over the world as well as to smaller cities in Europe conveys the level of service present at the airport. However, terminal information seems to cross the line. The fact that, say, British Airways' Las Vegas flight departs from T3 while the Bangalore flight leaves from T5 does not sound encyclopedic at all. It sounds like a travel guide directing passengers when they connect through Heathrow.
"Why can't all destinations served by an airport be listed in prose form?" I think you know the answer to this. Listing all the destinations served from Heathrow Airport in prose is not feasible. This works for smaller airports, though (and should be done per MOS:TABLES), such as Belgaum Airport.
"At DXB for example, is it not notable that only two airlines use the largest terminal in the world?" It certainly is. This can be noted elsewhere in the article. (However, merely moving all the terminal information to other parts of the article doesn't make sense, as you noted. Notable cases, such as the fact that British Airways dominates T5, can be included.) — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- You stated "they also provide an idea of an airline's presence at an airport" yet why does that argument not hold up for providing an idea of an airline's presence within individual terminals. Adding a terminal information column adds one character of information to the table in a very neatly, summarised form. Based on what policy does it "cross the line?" As I said earlier, you could quite easily make the case that a list of destinations breaches it (I'm not advocating, just pointing out the hypocrisy). I'm also not advocating prose form for destinations, again pointing out the double standards in this discussion. Railway station articles routinely include which trains serve which platforms, without incident, and I don't see the difference here - if anything, terminal information is more notable. Listing gate numbers and the like is far too specific, I just don't see the argument, based on policy let alone anything else, that denies a terminal column. -- Whats new?(talk) 01:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Besides the points raised above, another point is that it is simply not notable. To paraphrase John Marshall, we must never forget that it is an encyclopedia we are expounding. We include railway station information because at most stations it is much harder for the station operator to rearrange service, since they normally need to undertake enormous capital expenditures in the millions or billions of dollars. For example, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority is spending over $800 million to build the Regional Connector tunnel through downtown Los Angeles, which will enable Metro to radically reconfigure its light rail network. In turn, it is because such capital expenditures are so expensive and hence so rare that makes the resulting service changes notable. That is, rail vehicles are literally locked to the rails in a way that planes are not. Airlines routinely move service around between various existing terminals at airports in ways that also impact millions of travelers, but because rearranging service is so easy (setting up their computers at an existing counter and putting up their logo and signs), it rarely gets news coverage and is usually not notable. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- If I take the example of Gatwick Airport where some the removal of terminal information has been implemented, new section has been added to explain terminal relocation - which is fine - but fails to explain what is the new situation and we don't know which airline uses which terminal. And I would like to remind WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD which is applicable here where the information is directly provided by the airport and copied in press article. Wykx (talk) 10:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with the points made by Wykx here. Further, Coolcaesar makes a notability argument for train stations but not airports which doesn't stack up. Notability is established by reliable sources not by which topics you deem "expensive" enough to warrant mention - that is a poor argument. A quick Google search turns up numerous terminal changes in RS: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Furthermore, as noted above, primary sources are pertinent in this case. Again, most of the support arguments are based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and interpretations of NOTTRAVEL rather than actual substantive policy -- Whats new?(talk) 00:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Point me to a statement based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, we are disagreeing on wether the current format is too suggestive of a travel guide, not wether it makes the destination tables look better. The terminals column was added to the tables when we went from listing destinations by terminal to the current format, they were never added to show the distribution of airlines at an airport. As many users have responded, the current way terminals are listed makes the destination tables look like a travel guide. Without them, the tables do not "guide" passengers but rather depict the extent of airline service at an airport. I am NOT arguing that terminal/concourse information itself violates WP:NOTTRAVEL, as long as its sourced, I see nothing wrong with including it. However, I am arguing that the current format "guides" a potential airline passenger rather than displaying the information in an encyclopedic way. As already done on many airports, the information can be presented in a more informative way that does not look like a travel guide. Examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati/Northern_Kentucky_International_Airport#Main_Terminal_.28Terminal_3.29, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_International_Airport#Current_terminals, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_International_Airport#Terminal_Arrangements, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas/Fort_Worth_International_Airport#Terminals, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathrow_Airport#Terminals, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai_International_Airport#Terminals, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_Capital_International_Airport#Terminals. LAX actually has a great format, which could be followed by many large airports, its nice and simple: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_International_Airport#Terminal_Arrangements. Stinger20 (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with any of the above, and I very much like the LAX format. But how are any of those formats compliant with GUIDE? It is presenting the same information in a different way. The content is the same - so ergo by your rationale the content breaches GUIDE? -- Whats new?(talk) 23:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- The content is totally different, these paragraph formats do not "guide" because they are giving information about the terminals (history, size, use, and AIRLINES). Whereas the table does not provide any of this information, but rather just says airline XXX operates in terminal XXX. That seems like a travel guide rather than providing encyclopedic information. In contrast, the list of the destinations served by that airline is encyclopedic because it shows the extent of service from an airport. It is not a guide like the list of terminals because it would not help "guide" a passenger at an airport, rather its more useful to someone wanting to know more about the airport. Stinger20 (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Semantics. Writing "American Airlines flights depart from terminal 1" is no more or less a guide than having 1 next to American Airlines in a table column headed Terminal. The only difference is formatting. -- Whats new?(talk) 00:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- The content is totally different, these paragraph formats do not "guide" because they are giving information about the terminals (history, size, use, and AIRLINES). Whereas the table does not provide any of this information, but rather just says airline XXX operates in terminal XXX. That seems like a travel guide rather than providing encyclopedic information. In contrast, the list of the destinations served by that airline is encyclopedic because it shows the extent of service from an airport. It is not a guide like the list of terminals because it would not help "guide" a passenger at an airport, rather its more useful to someone wanting to know more about the airport. Stinger20 (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with any of the above, and I very much like the LAX format. But how are any of those formats compliant with GUIDE? It is presenting the same information in a different way. The content is the same - so ergo by your rationale the content breaches GUIDE? -- Whats new?(talk) 23:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Point me to a statement based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, we are disagreeing on wether the current format is too suggestive of a travel guide, not wether it makes the destination tables look better. The terminals column was added to the tables when we went from listing destinations by terminal to the current format, they were never added to show the distribution of airlines at an airport. As many users have responded, the current way terminals are listed makes the destination tables look like a travel guide. Without them, the tables do not "guide" passengers but rather depict the extent of airline service at an airport. I am NOT arguing that terminal/concourse information itself violates WP:NOTTRAVEL, as long as its sourced, I see nothing wrong with including it. However, I am arguing that the current format "guides" a potential airline passenger rather than displaying the information in an encyclopedic way. As already done on many airports, the information can be presented in a more informative way that does not look like a travel guide. Examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati/Northern_Kentucky_International_Airport#Main_Terminal_.28Terminal_3.29, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_International_Airport#Current_terminals, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_International_Airport#Terminal_Arrangements, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas/Fort_Worth_International_Airport#Terminals, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathrow_Airport#Terminals, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai_International_Airport#Terminals, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_Capital_International_Airport#Terminals. LAX actually has a great format, which could be followed by many large airports, its nice and simple: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_International_Airport#Terminal_Arrangements. Stinger20 (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with the points made by Wykx here. Further, Coolcaesar makes a notability argument for train stations but not airports which doesn't stack up. Notability is established by reliable sources not by which topics you deem "expensive" enough to warrant mention - that is a poor argument. A quick Google search turns up numerous terminal changes in RS: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Furthermore, as noted above, primary sources are pertinent in this case. Again, most of the support arguments are based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and interpretations of NOTTRAVEL rather than actual substantive policy -- Whats new?(talk) 00:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- If I take the example of Gatwick Airport where some the removal of terminal information has been implemented, new section has been added to explain terminal relocation - which is fine - but fails to explain what is the new situation and we don't know which airline uses which terminal. And I would like to remind WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD which is applicable here where the information is directly provided by the airport and copied in press article. Wykx (talk) 10:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Besides the points raised above, another point is that it is simply not notable. To paraphrase John Marshall, we must never forget that it is an encyclopedia we are expounding. We include railway station information because at most stations it is much harder for the station operator to rearrange service, since they normally need to undertake enormous capital expenditures in the millions or billions of dollars. For example, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority is spending over $800 million to build the Regional Connector tunnel through downtown Los Angeles, which will enable Metro to radically reconfigure its light rail network. In turn, it is because such capital expenditures are so expensive and hence so rare that makes the resulting service changes notable. That is, rail vehicles are literally locked to the rails in a way that planes are not. Airlines routinely move service around between various existing terminals at airports in ways that also impact millions of travelers, but because rearranging service is so easy (setting up their computers at an existing counter and putting up their logo and signs), it rarely gets news coverage and is usually not notable. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Notice you are using a fragment of a sentence, which is very similar to the format of the table:
- "American Airlines flights depart from terminal A" or in the format of a table: "American Airlines | ...destinations... | Terminal A"
- vs
- "American Airlines and its regional affiliate American Eagle have a large presence at Dallas/Fort Worth. The world's largest airline, as of December 9, 2013, operates its largest hub at DFW. The two airlines operate at all five of the airport's terminals.[36] Terminal A, called "Terminal 2E" when the airport was opened, is fully occupied by American Airlines for domestic flights. Prior to the opening of Terminal D, Terminal A operated most of AA's international flights at the airport. During the late 1990s, many American Eagle flights began moving to Terminal B. Before Terminal D was opened, American Eagle flights also used a satellite terminal (named Satellite Terminal A2) near Terminal A due to gate restraints. Passengers were taken to the satellite via shuttle buses from gate A6. Satellite Terminal A2 (Gates A2A–A2N) was abandoned in 2005 when all American Eagle flights were consolidated into Terminals B and D. This terminal is used to house all of American's A321, 737, and 757."
- There is a huge difference between the two... Stinger20 (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- That is not a direct comparison. I'm not disputing notability of terminal opening dates, history, etc. I'm asking specifically how writing airline terminal numbers in prose is any more or less NOTAGUIDE than writing it in table form. -- Whats new?(talk) 01:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- The context matters, just stating the fact that AA flies out of terminal A, wether in a table or sentence suggests a guide. However, when in the context of a paragraph about the terminal, it is no longer a "guide" for a passenger, but information for an encyclopedia. Stinger20 (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Whats new? and Stinger20, I don’t really know how to word/say my response so please bear with me here. I think you both have to change how your thinking of the reason for this discussion. In the first discussion, we reached a sort of consensus that the listing of terminals was kind of bad and we should cite the airlines' route map or destination guide. We started doing that then we ran into edit wars with a few articles which is why this second discussion is going on. The edit wars were happening because the general readers who read these articles weren’t happy with the new standard for airport articles. I feel that the word “general reader” is the keyword that needs to be focused on throughout this discussion and I truly feel that everyone who has contributed this discussion has overlooked these two words. I know that terminals are on the top 10 list of things people look for in an airport article. I feel that taking it away or making it harder for the readers to find is a failure to the purpose that Wikipedia is even in existence. To tell you the truth, its time to stop worrying about it being a travel guide or not. The best option that will make everyone happy might have to break a policy or two for it to be the best choice.
I understand both of your opinions and I can connect to the both of you. What’s my name?, I get the impression that you want long detailed descriptions while Singer20 is fine with slightly shorter descriptions. What's my Name?, the only problem I see with your plan is that most airports don’t really document the history of their terminals, so your plan might get difficult to implant once we get to the medium/small airports.
In my opinion, I really feel that what was there before; having a third column for terminal and adding a fourth for the timetable reference is the best choice for our readers. Thank you, KDTW Flyer (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)- @KDTW Flyer: Thanks for your input, and I too agree with much of what you have said. To clarify, I am strongly supportive of terminal information - both the terminal column as well as prose sections for history and detailed info about terminals. Obviously in small airports, if there is no verifiable information then there should be no unsourced terminal sections. My points here were that NOTTRAVEL is not a valid rationale for how terminal information is displayed -- Whats new?(talk) 02:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Whats new? and Stinger20, I don’t really know how to word/say my response so please bear with me here. I think you both have to change how your thinking of the reason for this discussion. In the first discussion, we reached a sort of consensus that the listing of terminals was kind of bad and we should cite the airlines' route map or destination guide. We started doing that then we ran into edit wars with a few articles which is why this second discussion is going on. The edit wars were happening because the general readers who read these articles weren’t happy with the new standard for airport articles. I feel that the word “general reader” is the keyword that needs to be focused on throughout this discussion and I truly feel that everyone who has contributed this discussion has overlooked these two words. I know that terminals are on the top 10 list of things people look for in an airport article. I feel that taking it away or making it harder for the readers to find is a failure to the purpose that Wikipedia is even in existence. To tell you the truth, its time to stop worrying about it being a travel guide or not. The best option that will make everyone happy might have to break a policy or two for it to be the best choice.
- The context matters, just stating the fact that AA flies out of terminal A, wether in a table or sentence suggests a guide. However, when in the context of a paragraph about the terminal, it is no longer a "guide" for a passenger, but information for an encyclopedia. Stinger20 (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- That is not a direct comparison. I'm not disputing notability of terminal opening dates, history, etc. I'm asking specifically how writing airline terminal numbers in prose is any more or less NOTAGUIDE than writing it in table form. -- Whats new?(talk) 01:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
KDTW Flyer, I don't understand your definition of the "general reader." You mean aviation enthusiast IPs like the revert-happy one at Los Angeles International Airport? I don't think the average reader cares about where each airline is located at an airport. As aviation enthusiasts ourselves, I think we need to step back and consider whether the information we are adding is truly encyclopedic. I've given examples above of why I feel terminal information violates WP:NOTTRAVEL. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 02:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- I do think the average reader cares. Who are you to determine that? -- Whats new?(talk) 02:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Pinging Whats new?, Sunnya343 and Stinger20, Thank you for your replies. So about the long time in getting back you, I have been working on this for well over an hour and a half; I am going to get into a few things you all mentioned so once again thank you for bearing with me. First my reasoning for using the statement “general reader”. To me this discussion is is not legal according to Wikipedia standards because theres only like 10 of us in on this discussion. Sunnya343, this my be hard to think but I think the “revert-happy one at Los Angeles International Airport” is the user who we have to give the A+ to, he/she is the one that said “excuse me but we didn’t get a voice in this desition, could we get a voice in this discussion”. This whole second discussion is just as bad as the first, for us to come to a consensus the right way in the way that the wikipedia policy wants us, we have to invite some people in, and these have to be newer users as well. I don’t want to be mean to you Sunnya343, but the way you described these newer editors in your post is a bit rude and uncivil. I care about how an airport article is laid out and I bet the average readers care just as much and want to have a voice. I don't mean to make you feel bad Sunnya343 nor is it my intention, because your not the only person here on Wikipedia with the attitude that newer users have no voice. I strongly believe that there is a huge issue with how older users treat newer ones, but this is material for a different discussion.
What's my Name?, I agree that smaller airports shouldn't have the terminal information, actually as far as I know at most small airports airline float around to different gates depending on traffic, different equipment types, etc. I know that my hometown airport does that.
One last note that I want to leave with you 3, is I'm kind of 50/50 one the whole travel guide argument, I travel a lot and I sometimes read the little binder travel guide thing they have in the room and there's almost always a page on the local airport, mostly the airline(s) that serve the airport. So my point is that if your going to call listing the terminals travel guideish, we might as well call list listing the airlines as a travel guide as well.
Sunnya343, I really am sorry about putting up you in the spotlight, but you were the perfect example for this situation and I've been burning to get this concern with Wikipedia out for a while now. You seem like a nice person from the one or two mini discussions we had in the first discussion.
I hope you all have a nice evening, KDTW Flyer (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)- KDTW Flyer, I wasn't thinking that way at all. An IP or a new user can try to have a discussion on the talk page rather than reverting multiple times. If such a user wants to have a voice, they're not helping their case by reverting in such a manner. (And with IPs like the ones at the Los Angeles airport article, having a discussion is quite difficult.) I really don't know how you concluded that I have a low regard for IPs or new editors. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 04:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what much of that has to do with this RfC anyway. In any case, this discussion is ultimately a matter of formatting from my view. No one I see here is suggesting that terminal information is not notable. Editors simply have different views with how some of that information is presented. Those quoting NOTTRAVEL are implying that which airlines use which terminals are not notable for inclusion regardless of how it is presented, as it is a guideline which implies notability not presentation. -- Whats new?(talk) 05:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Based on the question, "Should the terminal information column be removed from all airline and destination tables at airport articles?" I am taking a slightly different stance that the terminal information is notable, but needs to be presented in a way that is more concise, encyclopedic, and properly referenced. The current formatting does not fit any of these three categories. I think the WP:NOTTRAVEL is partially a good argument, but both sides can be seen equally, so if you are going to argue for support/oppose, you need to provide more evidence beyond it does/not violate WP:NOTTRAVEL. Stinger20 (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- What could be more concise than one column in an existing table, rather than multiple paragraphs or lengthy lists of airlines in each terminal? Adding references to the column can be done easily. NOTTRAVEL is a notability test, not for formatting! -- Whats new?(talk) 05:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- I have seen no answer to the fact the text summary doesn't cover all the airlines serving the airport. I would like your feedback on this. Why do you think this information shouldn't be included for small airlines and not for the big ones? Wykx (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Throwing in my 2 cents here. The destination table is something that seems to be taken straight from a travel guide. While I was too busy to provide my opinion in the previous RfC, I'm simply voicing my opinion here. I strongly believe that the history of the terminal, and airlines with a major presence, operating from that terminal are necessary. Small airlines, as well as larger ones with minimal presence at an airport, are, in my opinion, not notable. The terminals section seems like a good place to raise the major players, but only in an encyclopedic way as Stinger20 suggested. Thank you. Garretka (talk) 10:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- In the text for sure but in the table format, since it gives the opportunity to bring the information in a clear and concise manner I don't see the point. Wykx (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- The table format spells out every case, as mentioned previously, where the majority are not notable. For example, I don't care if an airline has all their flights at one terminal but the one international flight is processed at another terminal. Terminal designation for every airline, to me, is non notable. If you're looking for terminal information in a clear and concise way, you look at the airport website or a travel guide or even wikivoyage, not Wikipedia. Garretka (talk) 11:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Wikivoyage focuses on ground transportation, eat, drink, buy, do, which gate is where and advises to check terminal with airline. Airport website are rarely concise. As for notability, it is based on coverage. So Air France or Qatar Airways should be notable in Paris or Doha but not notable in Singapore or Los Angeles? And it's a valuable information to know if the hub of an airline is not completely in one terminal. Wykx (talk) 11:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Airport websites are more often than not concise. If wikivoyage says check terminal with airline, why would Wikipedia go any more in depth? That's exactly my opinion, they fly a few daily trips to those destinations and should not be covered beyond the destination tables. Again, that's what paragraph form is for, spelling out the history and major use of each terminal. I've given my opinion which mirrors the majority of other users, and I stand by my opinion that this information can be found on airport and travel guides, and beyond the encyclopaedic information of major operations, should not be listed. Thanks. Garretka (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- The table format spells out every case, as mentioned previously, where the majority are not notable. For example, I don't care if an airline has all their flights at one terminal but the one international flight is processed at another terminal. Terminal designation for every airline, to me, is non notable. If you're looking for terminal information in a clear and concise way, you look at the airport website or a travel guide or even wikivoyage, not Wikipedia. Garretka (talk) 11:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- People mention WP:NOTTRAVEL but that policy if one reads it, does not ban travel related information. It only says that such info should be of general interest to the article subject. A list of good restaurants or hotels are of interest to the traveller, but probably has not enough general interest to a city article. The destination table is definitively of interest to understand an airport. The name of each airline is mainly in my opinion needed to assist finding a source (in tables the source can be located in each listed article). Which terminal each one use is probably of doubtful notability.--BIL (talk) 11:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Concur with BIL. Also, to respond to User:Whats new?'s point, it sounds like he or she probably does not fly that often. As any experienced flyer knows, large airlines like to shift operations between different terminals at major hubs in ways that are not covered by reliable sources, let alone the airlines' own Web sites. For example, United Airlines has an annoying tendency to quietly move domestic flights around at SFO, such as when it was flying certain domestic flights (e.g., SFO-IAD) out of the International Terminal last year, instead of Terminal 3. There was also the time United moved some domestic flights to Terminal 1 back in 2012. Neither move was publicized by United anywhere on its Web site or covered by reliable sources. The 2012 move was covered only by some aviation blogs. Similarly, as I noted above, American Airlines moved the bus terminal for the Eagle's Nest remote terminal from Terminal 6 to Terminal 5, but that move did not gain news coverage. The point is that there are many moves between terminals for which no reliable sources exist under WP:RS.
- Destination tables also have their own issues, but they are at least tolerable under Wikipedia core policies because they can always be verified from many airlines' official timetables (for the airlines that still publish them) or the OAG database (by anyone with a subscription). In contrast, when an airline has done a stealth move of flights between terminals at a hub with no mention on the Web sites of the airline or airport, and there hasn't been any coverage apart from some squawking on some aviation blogs, then an edit to the airport's article to reflect that move (i.e., by a passenger who just experienced it) would be first publication of original research in violation of WP:NOR. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Well its so nice of you to assume. There are certainly times when airlines may use a different terminal for operational reasons, whether planned or last minute. I'm not suggesting including every mention of every case, just retaining information about which airline use which terminal(s) predominantly for flights. If AA does a charter flight we don't list it in the table, so neither would we list a temporary terminal change. The information can be reliably sourced from secondary sources or primary (airports, airlines, airline groups). I found plenty of sources about the AA remote terminal moves you mentioned for example. In any event, and I say this again: this RfC is for WHERE the information should be displayed (in the table or not) and, for most supporters of the removal of this column, your rationale is NOTTRAVEL which is a notability argument and it therefore means you are arguing ALL airline/terminal information should be removed from the article. If you are saying including Terminal 1 in a table is a guide, then so is writing "Terminal 1 houses American Airlines and British Airways" in prose form. If it can be included and sourced there, why can it not be included and sourced in the table? -- Whats new?(talk) 22:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- I think notability plays a huge part in this in addition to WP:NOTTRAVEL. For instance, at CDG, its relatively unimportant that all Delta flights operate out of Terminal 2E, however, its much more notable and useful for a reader to say all SkyTeam airlines operate out of Terminal 2E&F. Listing all the terminals (and keeping up with all the changes Coolcaesar mentioned) is not encyclopedic, that is besides the problems with WP:NOTTRAVEL that have already been pointed out. Stinger20 (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- That's all well and good when terminal arrangements are neat and tidy - what about when they are not? What happens when 3 SkyTeam airlines use terminal 1 and 3 others use terminal 2. What about unaligned airlines - do they get listed individually or get lumped in as "some unaligned airlines?" What about when one airline uses 3 terminals? Why are airline alliance terminal arrangements notable but individual airline arrangements are not? What makes an alliance more notable in your view? How about alliances below the 'big 3' - codesharing arrangements, common lounge facilities, etc also play a big part in who's in which terminal - are they notable enough to mention? It seems you're drawing an arbitrary line in the sand there. -- Whats new?(talk) 01:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Stinger20: Actually no there are five exceptions in Charles-de-Gaulle Airport although these airlines are members of Skyteam: Aeroflot, Saudia and Kenya Airways are from 2C, Czech Airlines from 2D because it is Central Europe out of Schengen... and even Air France from 2G for smaller aircrafts. So easy to check those exceptions with the table... Wykx (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Acually that's a great example of non-notable terminal arrangements. I highly doubt most readers know or care that these Airlines are part of SkyTeam and in the context of CDG, they are not notable compared to Delta or Air France who have hubs at the airport. What is more important and notable is that most SkyTeam members are concentrated in Terminals 2E&F to make connections/codesharing easier. I see no encyclopedic value in listing all these exceptions (which is what the terminal column does) other than providing a traveler with a guide for what terminal their flight will depart from WP:NOTTRAVEL. Even the Air France exception does not provide any useful/encyclopedic information other than assisting a traveler. Stinger20 (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- If terminals are not notable for an airport, what is notable?? In many of the articles, terminal descriptions and information are covering half of the article! Wykx (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Acually that's a great example of non-notable terminal arrangements. I highly doubt most readers know or care that these Airlines are part of SkyTeam and in the context of CDG, they are not notable compared to Delta or Air France who have hubs at the airport. What is more important and notable is that most SkyTeam members are concentrated in Terminals 2E&F to make connections/codesharing easier. I see no encyclopedic value in listing all these exceptions (which is what the terminal column does) other than providing a traveler with a guide for what terminal their flight will depart from WP:NOTTRAVEL. Even the Air France exception does not provide any useful/encyclopedic information other than assisting a traveler. Stinger20 (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- I think notability plays a huge part in this in addition to WP:NOTTRAVEL. For instance, at CDG, its relatively unimportant that all Delta flights operate out of Terminal 2E, however, its much more notable and useful for a reader to say all SkyTeam airlines operate out of Terminal 2E&F. Listing all the terminals (and keeping up with all the changes Coolcaesar mentioned) is not encyclopedic, that is besides the problems with WP:NOTTRAVEL that have already been pointed out. Stinger20 (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Well its so nice of you to assume. There are certainly times when airlines may use a different terminal for operational reasons, whether planned or last minute. I'm not suggesting including every mention of every case, just retaining information about which airline use which terminal(s) predominantly for flights. If AA does a charter flight we don't list it in the table, so neither would we list a temporary terminal change. The information can be reliably sourced from secondary sources or primary (airports, airlines, airline groups). I found plenty of sources about the AA remote terminal moves you mentioned for example. In any event, and I say this again: this RfC is for WHERE the information should be displayed (in the table or not) and, for most supporters of the removal of this column, your rationale is NOTTRAVEL which is a notability argument and it therefore means you are arguing ALL airline/terminal information should be removed from the article. If you are saying including Terminal 1 in a table is a guide, then so is writing "Terminal 1 houses American Airlines and British Airways" in prose form. If it can be included and sourced there, why can it not be included and sourced in the table? -- Whats new?(talk) 22:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- In the text for sure but in the table format, since it gives the opportunity to bring the information in a clear and concise manner I don't see the point. Wykx (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Throwing in my 2 cents here. The destination table is something that seems to be taken straight from a travel guide. While I was too busy to provide my opinion in the previous RfC, I'm simply voicing my opinion here. I strongly believe that the history of the terminal, and airlines with a major presence, operating from that terminal are necessary. Small airlines, as well as larger ones with minimal presence at an airport, are, in my opinion, not notable. The terminals section seems like a good place to raise the major players, but only in an encyclopedic way as Stinger20 suggested. Thank you. Garretka (talk) 10:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Based on the question, "Should the terminal information column be removed from all airline and destination tables at airport articles?" I am taking a slightly different stance that the terminal information is notable, but needs to be presented in a way that is more concise, encyclopedic, and properly referenced. The current formatting does not fit any of these three categories. I think the WP:NOTTRAVEL is partially a good argument, but both sides can be seen equally, so if you are going to argue for support/oppose, you need to provide more evidence beyond it does/not violate WP:NOTTRAVEL. Stinger20 (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what much of that has to do with this RfC anyway. In any case, this discussion is ultimately a matter of formatting from my view. No one I see here is suggesting that terminal information is not notable. Editors simply have different views with how some of that information is presented. Those quoting NOTTRAVEL are implying that which airlines use which terminals are not notable for inclusion regardless of how it is presented, as it is a guideline which implies notability not presentation. -- Whats new?(talk) 05:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- KDTW Flyer, I wasn't thinking that way at all. An IP or a new user can try to have a discussion on the talk page rather than reverting multiple times. If such a user wants to have a voice, they're not helping their case by reverting in such a manner. (And with IPs like the ones at the Los Angeles airport article, having a discussion is quite difficult.) I really don't know how you concluded that I have a low regard for IPs or new editors. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 04:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Pinging Whats new?, Sunnya343 and Stinger20, Thank you for your replies. So about the long time in getting back you, I have been working on this for well over an hour and a half; I am going to get into a few things you all mentioned so once again thank you for bearing with me. First my reasoning for using the statement “general reader”. To me this discussion is is not legal according to Wikipedia standards because theres only like 10 of us in on this discussion. Sunnya343, this my be hard to think but I think the “revert-happy one at Los Angeles International Airport” is the user who we have to give the A+ to, he/she is the one that said “excuse me but we didn’t get a voice in this desition, could we get a voice in this discussion”. This whole second discussion is just as bad as the first, for us to come to a consensus the right way in the way that the wikipedia policy wants us, we have to invite some people in, and these have to be newer users as well. I don’t want to be mean to you Sunnya343, but the way you described these newer editors in your post is a bit rude and uncivil. I care about how an airport article is laid out and I bet the average readers care just as much and want to have a voice. I don't mean to make you feel bad Sunnya343 nor is it my intention, because your not the only person here on Wikipedia with the attitude that newer users have no voice. I strongly believe that there is a huge issue with how older users treat newer ones, but this is material for a different discussion.
- perhaps the inclusionists can explain the encyclopedic value of edits such as this [[7]] and make a sensible case as to why this does not contravene WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTGUIDE because I can't see it _ I know it is true it is just not encyclopaedic. Anytime you are forcing people to be absolutely accurate to the minutest detail is when it has gone way past being an encyclopedia. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Do you mean we shouldn't have updated information? I would have understood your point if the information was constantly wrong and never updated. If it is updated, it's not "forced" Wykx (talk) 10:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that does not really answer the question I posed.Andrewgprout (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- A regularily scheduled flight began operating from terminal C, it was added to the table. That particular airline flies out of two terminals at that airport. Why is that any more or less notable than the destinations themselves? -- Whats new?(talk) 06:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- So how does that add to any understanding of the subject? which was my question which is still not answered - the only use for such a bit of information is as a "GUIDE". There is no requirement in Wikipedia to be comprehensive - just because something "is" does not make it encyclopaedic. "How is this different than the destinations themselves" - well - quite possibly not much but that is not the question being asked by this rfc.Andrewgprout (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- As has previously been explained, it goes to how airlines are grouped or arranged at particular terminals, particularily relevent in terms of codesharing and alliances, as well as the overall structure of the airport (domestic and international flights seperated, one terminal per alliance, etc). In any case, terminal arrangements are notable where sources exist, and for most major airports they do. You mention that individual destinations aren't particularily different - then why have the table at all - perhaps the RfC should be changed to removing the entire table. -- Whats new?(talk) 02:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- So how does that add to any understanding of the subject? which was my question which is still not answered - the only use for such a bit of information is as a "GUIDE". There is no requirement in Wikipedia to be comprehensive - just because something "is" does not make it encyclopaedic. "How is this different than the destinations themselves" - well - quite possibly not much but that is not the question being asked by this rfc.Andrewgprout (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- A regularily scheduled flight began operating from terminal C, it was added to the table. That particular airline flies out of two terminals at that airport. Why is that any more or less notable than the destinations themselves? -- Whats new?(talk) 06:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that does not really answer the question I posed.Andrewgprout (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Do you mean we shouldn't have updated information? I would have understood your point if the information was constantly wrong and never updated. If it is updated, it's not "forced" Wykx (talk) 10:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- perhaps the inclusionists can explain the encyclopedic value of edits such as this [[7]] and make a sensible case as to why this does not contravene WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTGUIDE because I can't see it _ I know it is true it is just not encyclopaedic. Anytime you are forcing people to be absolutely accurate to the minutest detail is when it has gone way past being an encyclopedia. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- I don't dispute where majority lies to date, I just dispute the reasons given and the double standards -- Whats new?(talk) 05:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- Here is a question for users against removing concourse/terminal information, what encyclopedic value does the terminal/concourse information serve a reader on an airport page? I am having trouble seeing the current setup as anything other than useful for a traveler, hence it is content for a travel guide, not an encyclopedia (what WP:NOTTRAVEL is pointing to). Here is a quote by Whats new? that attempts to answer this question, "it goes to how airlines are grouped or arranged at particular terminals, particularily relevent in terms of codesharing and alliances, as well as the overall structure of the airport (domestic and international flights seperated, one terminal per alliance, etc). In any case, terminal arrangements are notable where sources exist." If airlines are grouped according to codeshares/alliances, is that not something that can be put in a properly sourced paragraph? Again with the mention of "overall structure of an airport", that can be summarized in a sentence, detailing the international and domestic concourses/terminals. You just provided an example of the important parts of terminal/concourse information. That is not the same thing as the unencyclopedic listing of every concourse assignment that would only be useful for a traveler. In comparison, I can easily answer this question for the destinations, they help show the extent of service an airport has and are useless to a traveler. We have already held numerous discussions about the notability of the destinations and every time there is strong support for keeping them, please keep this RFC focused to only the terminal/concourse information. Stinger20 (talk) 06:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- The summary doesn't give exceptions and the full details on terminal assignment of all the airlines serving the airport. Wykx (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- I am asking what the significance of these "exceptions and full details on terminal assignments" are to the airport article. This information seems like its more of a travel guide than encyclopedic information about the airport. Stinger20 (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- As previously mentioned, the changes of terminal assignments are i) covered by news articles and ii) we have reliable airport pages sources. This information is useful from several perspectives: airport, airline, traveller. "Encyclopedia articles focus on factual information concerning the subject for which the article is named". Terminal assignments are factual information concerning airports. Wykx (talk) 09:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- "...they help show the extent of service an airport has and are useless to a traveler" for every destination served, yet the same doesn't apply for the extent of service at a terminal and aren't useless to a traveller? Circle that square. Airport destinations are "useless to a traveler" are they? Sorry, but if the NOTTRAVEL argument applies to the terminal information then I continue to fail to see how every destination served isn't, and I look forward to putting that forward at a future RfC on destination information. If terminal information can be nearly summarised in prose form, why can't destinations as well? And if every airline terminal arrangement isn't notable, why is every tiny airport served once a week, or destinations served seasonally for a month or two of the year, or even charter destinations which operate essentially on demand only, notable enough to be included in a table? Double standards litter this NOTTRAVEL argument -- Whats new?(talk) 23:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- For me, the fundamental problems with terminal information are notability (as amply explained above) and WP:RS. Many of the sources that would have to be relied upon to substantiate terminal locations for airlines are of questionable reliability under WP:RS because they are self-published sources, primary sources, and the like, and so either we let those terminal columns go unsourced, or we tolerate really sloppy sourcing. For example, both United and SFO failed to update their Web sites to reflect the important terminal changes that I mentioned above (despite the confusion and distress they caused to many travelers), which brings the reliability of both of their Web sites into question. In contrast, the initiation and termination of an entire route is a much more notable event (because of the paperwork and expense involved) that usually draws coverage from secondary news media sources and is also updated regularly in reliable secondary sources like OAG. After all, if OAG ceases to be accurate, they won't have paying subscribers for very long. --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- I've already demonstrated sources exist for terminal changes - primary and secondary - earlier in this discussion. If there isn't a reliable source for a particular terminal change, then I have no problem omitting it in that circumstance. -- Whats new?(talk) 00:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- While I do not see the terminal information as currently presented as noteworthy or encyclopedic, I could be persuaded the other way if we started sourcing the terminal information with sources, and continued to do the same for the routes. The biggest point I see is that all the documentation is not "set-in-stone", so while I feel its not encyclopedic, I am not sure the argument can hold up. We also run into the problem we discussed on removing the destinations, what exactly is notable/non-notable, and how do we distinguish between the two. I think its clear for the destinations that we should have them all, as long as they are referenced. Do any of the Support Removal group feel accurate sources would increase the notability of terminal assignments? I have had a lot of trouble finding sources for many airports terminals/concourses, so I am concerned about consistency across airport articles as well. I also included an idea for a new Terminals and Airlines table, with the header column listing the terminals rather than airlines, hoping to show the layout of an airport vs a travel guide where the airlines would be listed in the header column. Here are some proposed formats: User:Stinger20/sandbox, feel free to edit it if you would like, just duplicate the table and insert it below the original. Stinger20 (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Responding again to Whats new?, it's not the existence of such sources that is the issue, it is the quality of sources and the extent to which reliable sources actually publish articles covering changes of terminal assignments in a timely fashion. It makes no sense to assume the existence of such sources for the majority of airport terminal assignments. Whats new?'s logic, extrapolated over time to its logical conclusion, would lead to airport articles being populated with tables full of long out-of-date terminal information because (1) airport and airline Web sites are notorious for lagging behind service changes and (2) the news media is incapable of documenting such changes in a timely and accurate manner. The alternative would be to throw out WP:NOR, and that is a non-negotiable policy of the WP project. It appears that Whats new? is unaware of the ongoing crisis in journalism for the last 20 years, the very reason for why many humanities majors, myself included, chose to pursue careers in law or other more lucrative professions rather than journalism.
- For example, neither American Airlines nor LAX expressly explains anywhere on their regular Web sites in plain English the embarrassing truth that American Eagle flights are served by a hidden remote terminal (the Eagle's Nest) located east of terminal 8 (which means passengers need to anticipate a long bus ride to/from terminal 5 to that location). The only mentions of that remote terminal on the LAX Web site appear to be buried in passing mentions in press releases and newsletters as part of various minor news items, but not as part of stand-alone articles precisely explaining what that terminal is or warning of the severe inconvenience that it inflicts on travelers. And the news media is too busy covering political scandals, car chases, and police shootings to cover that story. As they say in journalism, if it bleeds, it leads. No self-respecting journalist is going to waste their time or their editor's time writing that story, because it's not the story that will lead to a Pulitzer Prize with their name on it. Yes, the Eagle Nest and the sheer craziness of flying through it are documented elsewhere on the Web, but only in airport/airline reviews and aviation blogs of questionable quality which are less likely to qualify under WP:RS. --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Well obviously you didn't bother to check for RS regarding your example. I found several articles with a 5 minute g search: [8] [9] [10]. Don't let your apparent disdain let you assume things. -- Whats new?(talk) 23:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- While I do not see the terminal information as currently presented as noteworthy or encyclopedic, I could be persuaded the other way if we started sourcing the terminal information with sources, and continued to do the same for the routes. The biggest point I see is that all the documentation is not "set-in-stone", so while I feel its not encyclopedic, I am not sure the argument can hold up. We also run into the problem we discussed on removing the destinations, what exactly is notable/non-notable, and how do we distinguish between the two. I think its clear for the destinations that we should have them all, as long as they are referenced. Do any of the Support Removal group feel accurate sources would increase the notability of terminal assignments? I have had a lot of trouble finding sources for many airports terminals/concourses, so I am concerned about consistency across airport articles as well. I also included an idea for a new Terminals and Airlines table, with the header column listing the terminals rather than airlines, hoping to show the layout of an airport vs a travel guide where the airlines would be listed in the header column. Here are some proposed formats: User:Stinger20/sandbox, feel free to edit it if you would like, just duplicate the table and insert it below the original. Stinger20 (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- I've already demonstrated sources exist for terminal changes - primary and secondary - earlier in this discussion. If there isn't a reliable source for a particular terminal change, then I have no problem omitting it in that circumstance. -- Whats new?(talk) 00:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- For me, the fundamental problems with terminal information are notability (as amply explained above) and WP:RS. Many of the sources that would have to be relied upon to substantiate terminal locations for airlines are of questionable reliability under WP:RS because they are self-published sources, primary sources, and the like, and so either we let those terminal columns go unsourced, or we tolerate really sloppy sourcing. For example, both United and SFO failed to update their Web sites to reflect the important terminal changes that I mentioned above (despite the confusion and distress they caused to many travelers), which brings the reliability of both of their Web sites into question. In contrast, the initiation and termination of an entire route is a much more notable event (because of the paperwork and expense involved) that usually draws coverage from secondary news media sources and is also updated regularly in reliable secondary sources like OAG. After all, if OAG ceases to be accurate, they won't have paying subscribers for very long. --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- "...they help show the extent of service an airport has and are useless to a traveler" for every destination served, yet the same doesn't apply for the extent of service at a terminal and aren't useless to a traveller? Circle that square. Airport destinations are "useless to a traveler" are they? Sorry, but if the NOTTRAVEL argument applies to the terminal information then I continue to fail to see how every destination served isn't, and I look forward to putting that forward at a future RfC on destination information. If terminal information can be nearly summarised in prose form, why can't destinations as well? And if every airline terminal arrangement isn't notable, why is every tiny airport served once a week, or destinations served seasonally for a month or two of the year, or even charter destinations which operate essentially on demand only, notable enough to be included in a table? Double standards litter this NOTTRAVEL argument -- Whats new?(talk) 23:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- As previously mentioned, the changes of terminal assignments are i) covered by news articles and ii) we have reliable airport pages sources. This information is useful from several perspectives: airport, airline, traveller. "Encyclopedia articles focus on factual information concerning the subject for which the article is named". Terminal assignments are factual information concerning airports. Wykx (talk) 09:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- I am asking what the significance of these "exceptions and full details on terminal assignments" are to the airport article. This information seems like its more of a travel guide than encyclopedic information about the airport. Stinger20 (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- The summary doesn't give exceptions and the full details on terminal assignment of all the airlines serving the airport. Wykx (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- Here is a question for users against removing concourse/terminal information, what encyclopedic value does the terminal/concourse information serve a reader on an airport page? I am having trouble seeing the current setup as anything other than useful for a traveler, hence it is content for a travel guide, not an encyclopedia (what WP:NOTTRAVEL is pointing to). Here is a quote by Whats new? that attempts to answer this question, "it goes to how airlines are grouped or arranged at particular terminals, particularily relevent in terms of codesharing and alliances, as well as the overall structure of the airport (domestic and international flights seperated, one terminal per alliance, etc). In any case, terminal arrangements are notable where sources exist." If airlines are grouped according to codeshares/alliances, is that not something that can be put in a properly sourced paragraph? Again with the mention of "overall structure of an airport", that can be summarized in a sentence, detailing the international and domestic concourses/terminals. You just provided an example of the important parts of terminal/concourse information. That is not the same thing as the unencyclopedic listing of every concourse assignment that would only be useful for a traveler. In comparison, I can easily answer this question for the destinations, they help show the extent of service an airport has and are useless to a traveler. We have already held numerous discussions about the notability of the destinations and every time there is strong support for keeping them, please keep this RFC focused to only the terminal/concourse information. Stinger20 (talk) 06:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I would also consider WP:NOTNEWS with regards to the terminal changes. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 16:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- I don't understand your point regarding WP:NOTNEWS. A terminal change is neither original reporting, nor emphasized breaking news. Wykx (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
- I mean that all these little terminal changes, e.g. American Airlines moves from Terminal 1 to Terminal 2, are not notable. "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 23:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
- Why would temporary destinations, such as charter or seasonal flights, not fall in the same category? -- Whats new?(talk) 00:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- I think that's a different discussion. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- How so? The rationale for one should hold for the other -- Whats new?(talk) 01:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- I think that's a different discussion. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- Why would temporary destinations, such as charter or seasonal flights, not fall in the same category? -- Whats new?(talk) 00:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- I mean that all these little terminal changes, e.g. American Airlines moves from Terminal 1 to Terminal 2, are not notable. "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 23:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Is there a final consensus on whether or not we should keep the terminals/concourse column and replace them with the references with the airline's timetable???? 97.85.118.142 (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
With 14 Support Removal and 3 Oppose Removal, there is an overwhelming majority in favor of removing the terminal information. We seem to be repeating the same points, the overall interpretation seems to be that most people seem to agree that the listing of terminal information is not encyclopedic in its current format, which is the purpose of this discussion. I would argue that we have made, according to Consensus decision-making, a "not-perfect" consensus, but one that would remove concourse information from just the tables as we discussed. I will submit a request for closure so an administrator can look over the discussion in a neutral point-of-view and decide if we have reached a consensus to remove the concourse information. Stinger20 (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Lufthansa changes
Some Lufthansa flights are switching from CityLine to mainline (and vice versa) from 28/29 October but it has been creating a whole lot of mess and people keep saying that it is 7 months away from mentioning this change right now. Should we mention this as new or ending service? TravelLover37 (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- I really don't think the average reader cares if service is operated by mainline or cityline. That said, how is this situation any different than an Air Canada mainline flight switching to a rouge flight, where the service "ends and begins". On the topic of being "too far out", I would suggest that Vibhss stops reverting these edits. These are sourced edits and what you are doing is considered vandalism. Garretka (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- I am absolutely certain the average reader is very bemused and confused by such pedantic detail and it should be avoided at all costs. The problem I believe is with the inclusion of the ' operated by' entries. It is my belief that these only cause confusion, are often hard to substantiate and often change randomly. If the big words on the plane say Lufthansa then just write Lufthansa. Anything more than that gets into trouble with NOTTRAVEL, being a guide and basically being a fan site for the pedantic among us. Andrewgprout (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- WP:NOTTRAVEL doesn't apply here. That sort of information is not travel information. Maybe the "average reader" does not care what airline operates the flights but it is still encyclopedic information that should be included. VG31 21:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- of course it is travel information? What else can it be. And please explain how and why you think such detail adds anything to a readers understanding of the airport article.Andrewgprout (talk) 05:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- If it were travel information it would be something that would be of relevance to your average airline passenger. I'm sure most flyers don't care what airline operates their flight. This information is not of interest to most people but those who do read this section of Wikipedia airport articles most likely are interested! Just because the majority of the public aren't interested in certain information doesn't mean it shouldn't be included. This information is of benefit to many people. VG31 20:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- Since the aircraft seats are sold by "Lufthansa" in both cases, the distinction is largely irrelevant for travelers and therefore NOTTRAVEL doesn't apply. That said, I am neutral about the importance of noting the operator of the flight. IMO, it's not very important, but not so irrelevant that it is worth the effort to debate the issue or purge it from all articles. AHeneen (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- It is actually quite important that the operating airline is included. For many airlines, particularly if a regional airline operates some flights, there is a big difference in aircraft used and often the branding. VG31 18:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Quite important for who? Please remember that Wikipedia is not a fan site it is an encyclopaedia.Andrewgprout (talk) 06:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Terminals information deletion
Hi, I wasn't aware of the discussion on terminal information deletion. I regret the decision taken because it's interesting to know: which airlines are grouped together, the volumes of international and domestic destinations, where each alliance is mostly represented inside aiports. I think this go beyond pure WP:NOTRAVEL policy. Wykx (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- It is in the above "Request for comments on the Airlines and destinations tables" discussion. The major point was we are trying to keep the airline tables from falling under WP:NOTRAVEL. It is not that terminal information violates WP:NOTRAVEL, its actually very important and notable for an airport page, but the problem is the way its presented in the destionation table. The current format seems like something a travel guide such as WikiVoyage would have, which we are trying to stay clear of per WP:NOTRAVEL. We are trying to encourage the information to be in actual paragraph form with useful information like: "Terminal 3 houses all SkyTeam carriers, Air France, Delta, KLM. The terminal was built in 1969 and was the first to feature moving walkways in addition to a tram. The terminal is equipped with international arrivals facilities, handling all international arrivals at the airport." See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati/Northern_Kentucky_International_Airport#Main_Terminal_.28Terminal_3.29 for a simple example of this. A paragraph such as this is much more encyclopedic than a large table which does not give you any information other than Airline A uses Concourse B. In contrast, its difficult to show the destinations of an airport in a paragraph form, so its makes more sense to list the actual destinations in a table form. I hope this made sense, please tell me if I am not explaining this well. Stinger20 (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Wykx: I am not going to add that information to an article without references and information on the terminals/concourses of an airport. Just a quick example, I removed the concourse information for SDF in the table, but looking at the airport's website, I do not see any information about which airlines use which gates/concourse. All of the terminal information currently in the tables in unreferenced. Stinger20 (talk) 11:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Wykx, why do you think the terminal information is beyond WP:NOTRAVEL? It is like telling passengers where to go for their flight. An example of this was at the Heathrow Airport article, where it was noted that certain British Airways flights departed from T5 while others departed from T3. Another example is how notes would be added indicating, say, "arrivals are handled at T1 and departures at T3." Overall, terminal information very much belongs in a travel guide in my eyes, not in an encyclopedia – it is not notable enough, and secondary references are hard to find.
- Stinger20, I don't think the solution is just to place the terminal information in a paragraph instead – the information is still there. I don't feel it is necessary to indicate the terminal used by each airline. In the case of Heathrow Airport, it can be noted that T5 is dominated by British Airways. Or at McCarran Airport, it can be written that, "T1 only handles domestic flights, while T3 handles all international flights and some domestic flights." If a passenger wants to know from which concourse his or her flight will depart, they should go to the airport's website or to a flight tracker – not to an encyclopedia. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 05:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Apologies for coming late to this discussion, but what exactly is the policy now for including terminal information in airline tables? As a casual observer to airport articles, I find it a bit confusing to follow -- Whats new?(talk) 03:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Whats new?, there appears to be consensus to remove this column. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 04:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Having a quick read through the above discussion, it doesn't seem the column's removal was a main focus of it and it appeared to just happen as a by-product. I think it serves, in many cases, encyclopedic value personally, and I think an issue regular members of this project will find is that many editors will be caught unaware and take issue with it, which seems to have started here at least. Having found something similar when making changes to a Manual of Style in a different Wikiproject and then attempting to implement them, you get a lot of editors caught unaware when you make the changes across multiple articles. Might I suggest, before you start deleting these columns from every article, you attempt to make editors aware of the impending changes before you actually do them. Doing that in itself is hard and you still won't capture everyone, but you may run into some edit wars and then wider problems otherwise. Personally, as someone not involved in the original discussion, I don't think it has been clearly expressed. Just my 2 cents -- Whats new?(talk) 05:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Disapointed in the removal of terminal information. Found it useful. Jamie2k9 (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- I agree, and I think a lot of editors will be disgruntled when they see terminal info being deleted. -- Whats new?(talk) 22:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Disapointed in the removal of terminal information. Found it useful. Jamie2k9 (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Having a quick read through the above discussion, it doesn't seem the column's removal was a main focus of it and it appeared to just happen as a by-product. I think it serves, in many cases, encyclopedic value personally, and I think an issue regular members of this project will find is that many editors will be caught unaware and take issue with it, which seems to have started here at least. Having found something similar when making changes to a Manual of Style in a different Wikiproject and then attempting to implement them, you get a lot of editors caught unaware when you make the changes across multiple articles. Might I suggest, before you start deleting these columns from every article, you attempt to make editors aware of the impending changes before you actually do them. Doing that in itself is hard and you still won't capture everyone, but you may run into some edit wars and then wider problems otherwise. Personally, as someone not involved in the original discussion, I don't think it has been clearly expressed. Just my 2 cents -- Whats new?(talk) 05:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Whats new?, you're right that it's hard. Getting people to contribute to that RfC was hard enough. It seems the only way to get people's attention is to be WP:BOLD and make the edits. To editors who may be disgruntled, I would consider WP:SILENCE. Although it's nice to see that people are talking about it now.
- Jamie2k9, to echo the comments of Andrewgprout, you and I as aviation enthusiasts may find this information useful, but I don't think it is notable overall to the average reader. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 23:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Sunnya343: No arguments about difficultly attracting comment on matters like this from me, I know it all too well. Remember also that consensus can change especially given silence is the weakest form of consensus. It is why I suggested above that before making widespread deletions, attempt to warn editors of the perceived consensus, perhaps through talk pages at major airport articles and various aviation themed Wikiprojects to either sort out any issues before edit wars begin, or strengthen consensus on the matter. -- Whats new?(talk) 23:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Sunnya343: Wikipedia is not only for the average reader. Wykx (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Neither it is a fansite.--Jetstreamer Talk 15:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- I've seen a number of articles where users have attempted to revert deletions of this column. I would strongly suggest opening a discussion specifically on this issue of whether or not to include terminal info. You do have only the weakest form of consensus in SILENCE with multiple instances of other user's disagreeing. -- Whats new?(talk) 22:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- I have made a majority of the changes and out of the pages I have changed, I have been challenged only TWICE (See below for LAX). I am not sure where you are seeing all these "attempts to revert the deletion of the column". Due to WP:Silence, I am completely justified to make the edits since there were no major objections and the removal of the destionation column was discussed pretty explicitly. I have since stopped as a result of this discussion, but I think we need to keep the changes and hopefully point more users to this discussion so we can come to an actual consensus. Stinger20 (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I wasn't criticising any one editor, nor any editor that made changes. I was just making the point that, in my opinion, there is some dissent to the removal of the terminal information. It was not a focus of the above wide-ranging discussion, and happened as a by-product thus why it is covered by SILENCE rather than an overt consensus. I would very much like to see an explicit consensus made on the issue. I suspect that, despite my opposing view, you may get more editors in support of removing but I don't think it is clear enough to start making wholesale changes. -- Whats new?(talk) 01:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm watching LAX and I think we should be moving the info out of the table instead of simply deleting. A textual listing or even another table of just what airlines are present in each terminal is more than encyclopedic (at least more than the destination listing!) HkCaGu (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- I have made a majority of the changes and out of the pages I have changed, I have been challenged only TWICE (See below for LAX). I am not sure where you are seeing all these "attempts to revert the deletion of the column". Due to WP:Silence, I am completely justified to make the edits since there were no major objections and the removal of the destionation column was discussed pretty explicitly. I have since stopped as a result of this discussion, but I think we need to keep the changes and hopefully point more users to this discussion so we can come to an actual consensus. Stinger20 (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- I've seen a number of articles where users have attempted to revert deletions of this column. I would strongly suggest opening a discussion specifically on this issue of whether or not to include terminal info. You do have only the weakest form of consensus in SILENCE with multiple instances of other user's disagreeing. -- Whats new?(talk) 22:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Neither it is a fansite.--Jetstreamer Talk 15:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- To all the users involved in the edit war on LAX, while I agree the terminals should not be listed, I think we need to wait for more consensus before changing very important airports like JFK/ATL/LAX/CDG/ect. I would ask that we change medium airports and some larger airports like BWI/LGA/SLC, but I am not sure were are ready to change pages like LAX. Stinger20 (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- I would suggest stop making changes to any airport until you get an explicit consensus. Your statement to change only select airports is admitting you have an issue, and sounds like trying to shy away from larger airports where you think you can get away with deletions with less page watchers. -- Whats new?(talk) 01:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- I already stopped changing airport pages since WP:SILENCE is no longer valid, I am trying to stop any more changes from taking place, but I am saying keep what is already changed to avoid more edit wars. I am not "getting away" with deletions, I am perfectly valid in making an edit that users have agreed upon. My issue is with users refusing to participate in discussions then disagreeing with the changes we make. We need to focus on wether the terminal/concourse information should be removed, not wether users were justified in making the changes that have already occurred. This happened on the last RFC, we need to be clear and focused if we are ever to get consensus on an issue. Stinger20 (talk) 02:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Then perhaps the best way to achieve consensus is an RfC on specifically the terminal issue -- Whats new?(talk) 02:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- I totally agree, I don't have time to set it up tonight, but if anyone else can that would be great! Stinger20 (talk) 02:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Done -- Whats new?(talk) 02:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- I totally agree, I don't have time to set it up tonight, but if anyone else can that would be great! Stinger20 (talk) 02:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Then perhaps the best way to achieve consensus is an RfC on specifically the terminal issue -- Whats new?(talk) 02:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- I already stopped changing airport pages since WP:SILENCE is no longer valid, I am trying to stop any more changes from taking place, but I am saying keep what is already changed to avoid more edit wars. I am not "getting away" with deletions, I am perfectly valid in making an edit that users have agreed upon. My issue is with users refusing to participate in discussions then disagreeing with the changes we make. We need to focus on wether the terminal/concourse information should be removed, not wether users were justified in making the changes that have already occurred. This happened on the last RFC, we need to be clear and focused if we are ever to get consensus on an issue. Stinger20 (talk) 02:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- I would suggest stop making changes to any airport until you get an explicit consensus. Your statement to change only select airports is admitting you have an issue, and sounds like trying to shy away from larger airports where you think you can get away with deletions with less page watchers. -- Whats new?(talk) 01:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I have been an anonymous follower and editor in good faith of several major airport pages for years. Let me begin by saying the editors I have disagreed with have done nothing wrong, having now seen this page. However, the decisions regarding deletion of airport terminal information seems extremely questionable and a step in the wrong direction. The comments above seem to have ended a month ago, around early March, but I am in the past week seeing just a few airports being reverted to the format discussed here. However, this is not consistent. So the first issue is the inconsistency that currently exists between airport pages. Also, this page seems to indicate that changes should not be made anymore while further discussion occurs. However, changes are still sometimes being made and no further discussion is happening. So second issue is commitment to a strategy needs to be made. Additionally, I (and many of my peers, who outnumber the small group of users engaged in the earlier conversation on this page) all agree there is added value to the terminal information. If I am reading this page, the concern was WT:Travel or that it is being a travel guide. However, the information is useful as it indicates operational information that is valuable to stakeholders of an airport, and not just passengers who need a travel guide. While that may be an additional use of the information, eliminating it completely only removes added value/has negative impact. There is no upside or positive to removing terminal information. This is the third issue. I registered today because of this specific issue as it is important to many Wiki users and currently is in a very poor state. Forgive me if I am using this page incorrectly. I welcome feedback and clarity from more experienced users but want to represent many individuals in adding to the disagreement with removing terminal information. I have no issue with people having made edits but agree with the comments from 1 March 2017 that the decision to remove terminal information at all is not the right decision. OslPhlWasChi (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- OslPhlWasChi, it looks like you missed this discussion, which was a WP:RFC. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 23:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Sunnya343, Thank you, I do now see the second closed conversation. I and my peers still have a few major concerns with the current outcome. The single argument that seems to have resulted in removing terminal information is that it falls under WP:NOTTRAVEL as it is only useful for passengers/travelers. This however is incorrect. People across many professions and stakeholders of airports who are not travelers find great value in knowing what terminals are occupied by which airlines. From real estate professionals, to facility planners, to operators, whether they be direct employees of an airport, consultants and partners of an airport, or even just enthusiasts all receive value from knowing this. So between a primary argument that seems flawed, and a sample size of just 17 users, this outcome seems very flawed. Even if this in the final outcome as of March 26, the condition has been let inconsistent and the differing level of information across airport pages is creating, in my opinion, more of an informational issue than the initial NOTTRAVEL assertion. This is a major/greater risk of the small sample size. If less than 20 users are going to make such a change, then the changers must be ready to implement it and yes, that means it will be a great burden as the sample size is so small. But it has been nearly 10 days (after earlier periods of inactivity) and the conditional remains inconsistent creating much greater issues. OslPhlWasChi (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- OslPhlWasChi, I believe your argument has been addressed in the RfC. Regarding the sample size, I think it's sufficient; I don't think expecting a much higher number of participants is reasonable, as there are not too many frequent contributors to WT:AIRPORTS. Also, most importantly, the RfC contains the opinions of random editors who may not be regular editors of airport articles/aviation enthusiasts, creating a diverse sample of opinions and avoiding WP:CONLIMITED.
- As to the fact that the change has not been implemented widely yet, we cannot expect it to happen overnight. Also, the responsibility to remove the terminals column lies not just with those who explicitly supported its removal in the RfC; other editors can read the discussion and assist. Of course, editors don't always have the time to edit the thousands of airport articles. In addition, it is advised to implement changes slowly in order to account for any new concerns that arise. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 03:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Sunnya343: Thank you again for your response and I promise this is the last one from me. I understand the desire to close this topic out for good having caught up in the last 24 hours on this page. In response to the RfC addresses the issue, I think this gets us into a cyclical pattern. Some say terminal information is for passengers - this is true. Others say there is value for non-passengers to understanding terminal information - this is also true. Therefore, the decision to remove the information may result in some passengers no longer using Wiki as a travel guide, but it will additionally result in lost information, of an appropriate use, by others. Simply on logic, my support would have been for keeping it as removing it has additional negative impact. On sample size, I appreciate your response and see now that there are in fact few users on this WT page. However, I think it is misleading to think that this small sample could be representative of the larger user base who use the airport pages. I myself have been a user and editor for years and have only discovered this WT function in the past 24 hours (I am also not technically savy, but same goes for many readers). I also can appreciate that change takes time. However, again because the supposed benefit of this change is so minor (if at all), the inconsistent nature over the implementation period could be a temporary negative condition that outweighs the long-term value of this change. Anyways, thanks to the folks on this page who care and put the time in. Lets hope for some better outcomes moving forward. OslPhlWasChi (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Honolulu International Airport
Some IPs have been changing the name of the airport from Honolulu International Airport to Daniel K. Inouye International Airport. I don't see any mention that the airport has been renamed. I came across to some sources stating that this name change is not confirmed or official yet. Airport website is still reflecting the airport name as Honolulu International Airport". Can anyone find a source that this name change is confirmed or official? 97.85.118.142 (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Delta hub at Heathrow
Recently, Delta lists LHR as a hub/key market. But it keeps getting removed from the infobox. Any suggestions on this matter. 107.77.235.201 (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- The airport has recently been listed as a hub at SkyTeam with a source. I suggest to add the very same source to prevent further removals.--Jetstreamer Talk 19:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- It keeps getting removed because it is not a hub by Wikipedia definition of a hub. 107.77.235.201 (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- The source provided was from Delta itself as well. 107.77.235.201 (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- The Delta source is WP:PRIMARY what we must wait for is good quality WP:SECONDARY sources, which of course in this case are very unlikely to be found. I do not understand this desire to find every single possible entry to fill out a table or an info box entry, in the case of hubs, hubs are nearly always obvious please don't go looking for the tenuous ones as this only makes Wikipedia less accurate. Andrewgprout (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- And I just noticed that the Delta source says LHR is a SkyTeam hub, not a hub for the airline itself.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- The Delta source is WP:PRIMARY what we must wait for is good quality WP:SECONDARY sources, which of course in this case are very unlikely to be found. I do not understand this desire to find every single possible entry to fill out a table or an info box entry, in the case of hubs, hubs are nearly always obvious please don't go looking for the tenuous ones as this only makes Wikipedia less accurate. Andrewgprout (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
References
Why does wikipedia have an issue with type of reference used, your job should be to make sure content is referenced, today an editor at Mumbai airport article removed refernces from Yemenia entry just because they didnt fit some criteria, now that information is there un-referenced for the average viewer, only someone into aviation will know that its correct, to others it could be someehing just thrown in by an Indian aviation fanboy, considering Yemen is at war and to thenm the airine is not flying, sp only the reference validates that information Mustangmanxxx (talk) 02:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yes there is a definite desire to treat "Airports" referencing in a totally different way than the rest of Wikipedia in some sort of fanboy local nerd subculture. The following is a far from untypical discussion - in this case from my talk page.
To quote.... user:83.171.191.142 nothing in WP:AIRPORTS says you should delete existing references, existing references can exist because someone has taken the opportunity to better reference a fact, or often because a fact has been controversial and the reference has become required Removing such references is against theWikipedia core policies including WP:V. Andrewgprout (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
And their rather worrying unsigned answer...
- Please discuss this at the aviation portal as it is currently our policy to remove sources from the lists which is also supported by the admins. I do see your point, but we practice it otherwise for quite some time. Refs are indeed removed once a route has started, they are only added when a currently listed destination is in dispute. This is why none of our well-maintained airport articles (e. g. those of major airports, especially in the US, the Middle East and Europe) have sources in the destinations list, this is also done to avoid overcrowding reference lists. Best regards.
It appears from this that the editor - has 1. a mind reading radar that knows that a reference is not there because it is controversial. 2. Knowledge of "our" (who?) policy which is not written anywhere and is totally against WP:V and in particular WP:BURDEN apart from departing from the whole way wikipedia and the core policies work and 3. some wild idea that removing references to keep the articles tidy makes the article "well maintained" Andrewgprout (talk) 03:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Barcelona
On Miami International Airport, a user insists that Barcelona should be specified as "Barcelona-El Prat" making it look like there are 2 airports serving Barcelona. However, there is another Barcelona but it is in Venezuela. I know that we disambiguate cities are served by multiple airports in the same country/state but not in different countries. Per WP:AIRPORTS, if there are 2 Barcelonas in 2 different countries then the city in should be specified as "Barcelona (Spain). 97.85.118.142 (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- It usually depends on whether the cities of the same name in different countries could be confused. For example Birmingham in the UK would not likely be confused with Birmingham, Alabama from the majority of airports in the world. However from US airports, they may be confused so Birmingham (AL) or Birmingham (UK) are used. VG31 18:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC).
- I would concur with VG31 - for Barcelona Spain just leave it as Barcelona - it is truely unlikely to be misinterpreted (and it has a hyperlink for those who are unsure). Barcelona (Venezuela) may or maybe not appropriate depending on the circumstance. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Avior Airlines flies from Miami to Barcelona in Venezuela and American Airlines flies from Miami to Barcelona in Spain but I believe Barcelona, Venezuela is less known to the public but I think they still should be differentiated on Miami International Airport since they are destinations from the airport. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 00:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Popular pages report
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/Archive 16/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Airports.
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
- The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
- The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
- The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).
We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Airports, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
United Airlines service to Johannesburg
Someone made a change that United is beginning service to Johannesburg from Newark on September 30, 2017. The source provided doesn't seem valid since it also mentioned the new EWR-EZE service. United's website shows no such flights on or after September 30 and no other sources can't be found regarding this. 107.77.234.81 (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the source does not appear valid, personally I would delete it as there is no supporting evidence for it. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Here is the source in question: https://www.kkvaluesnj.com/united-airlines-news and was added to Newark Liberty International Airport. 107.77.234.81 (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Charter flights at small airports
We have:
- 9.Do not include ad-hoc, irregular, or private charter services.
I would first like to change to "9.Do not include ad-hoc, irregular, or private charter services. For small airports with only a few destinations, we can include public charter services with a few yearly departures."
For the reason the such flights are often very notable at small airports, international flights with fairly large aircraft, where there normally are only regional flights. Someone who reverted such a flight claimed that flights must always be at least one per week to be included. But I can't find such a principle.--BIL (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- They don't necessarily need to be every week, but to be noteworthy enough for inclusion, there'd want to be at least 3-4 flights within two months. Thanks, VG31 19:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Destinations
Are there any rules as to what airports may be listed as a destination? If the flight is non-stop, then no question (example - Amsterdam to Toronto).
How about if there is a stop (example - Boston to Keflavik to Paris)?
Or a stop with a change in gauge? (example - Vancouver to Toronto on an Airbus A320 then Toronto to London on a Boeing 777). This kind of flight number is often made for marketing reasons. Some flights even have multiple flight numbers. For example, TWA had many transatlantic flights like this. A made up example might be a 747 operating JFK-LHR as TW808 but also TW892 (ORD-JFK-LHR), TW794 (SFO-JFK-LHR), TW 922 (ATL-JFK-LHR).
Vanguard10 (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- Take a look at WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT #7. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 05:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you.Vanguard10 (talk) 04:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Proposal
I propose that #7 be changed. Non-stop and direct flights not through a hub should continue to be listed but there be a note (for example, italics) for airports that are not non-stops but direct flights.
Another alternative is a footnote or a subscript of "D". I think italics is the easiest. If there is no note of italics at the bottom, then we would know that the article hasn't been updated to this new standard. Vanguard10 (talk) 04:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
EXISTING
7. List non-stop and direct flights only. That means the flight number and the aircraft, starts at this airport and continues to one or more airports. Avoid using the description 'via' since that is more correctly listed as another destination. If passengers can not disembark at a stop on a direct flight, then do not list it as a destination or as 'via'. Direct flights are not always non-stop flights. However, avoid listing direct flights that contain a stop at a domestic hub, as virtually all of these are simply flights from one "spoke city" to a hub, with the plane continuing from the hub to a second spoke city. Furthermore, these flights often involve plane changes, despite the direct designation. Including these flights dramatically increases the length of destination listings, artificially inflates the airline's presence at a location and requires constant updating, as these "timetable direct" destinations have little rhyme or reason and may change as often as every week or two.
PROPOSED
7. List non-stop and direct flights only. That means the flight number and the aircraft, starts at this airport and continues to one or more airports. Avoid using the description 'via' since that is more correctly listed as another destination. If passengers can not disembark at a stop on a direct flight, then do not list it as a destination or as 'via'. Direct flights are not always non-stop flights. However, avoid listing direct flights that contain a stop at a domestic hub, as virtually all of these are simply flights from one "spoke city" to a hub, with the plane continuing from the hub to a second spoke city. Furthermore, these flights often involve plane changes, despite the direct designation. Including these flights dramatically increases the length of destination listings, artificially inflates the airline's presence at a location and requires constant updating, as these "timetable direct" destinations have little rhyme or reason and may change as often as every week or two.
If an airport is not served non-stop, it should be in italics. If an airport article is reviewed and has only non-stops (not including direct flights through a hub) or has airports in italics, there should be a notation at the bottom of the table reading " italics " indicates airport is served by direct flight(s) but not non-stop flight(s).
Flags for destinations in statistical tables
The flags topic (again!). For the Airlines and destinations tables we already have the policy Do not include flags for airlines or the actual destination reached by consensus some time ago, however several airport articles have had flags added to statistical tables showing the busiest routes. This doesn't seem to comply with MOS:FLAGS as they are merely decorative and serve no encyclopedic purpose (plus, an airport is not a country). Perhaps we should extend the policy to cover this usage as well, what do other users think?
As an example, Edinburgh Airport table (with flags) vs. Manchester Airport table (without). Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 09:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say they are only for decorative purposes. If you take the Edinburgh Airport table, the flags help you to get a quick idea of what the most popular destination countries are (i.e. UK and Spain in that case). VG31 11:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that it helps get an idea of destination countries so it's helpful. I also realize that some people really don't like flags in the articles so it's helpful versus dislike. If there aren't many destinations or all in one country, flags are not necessary. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- These countries can be perfectly identified by their name, we don't need flags for that.--Jetstreamer Talk 16:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- I would be in favour of flags actually for airports. The airport is in the country, and showing the country helps to inform the average encyclopaedia reader which countries have the most popular routes. I'm in favour of it. st170e 13:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- I am in full support of the removal of the flags. I see them as pure decoration, this is just giving extra, inappropriate information for an airport article. If someone wants to see the flag of a country, they can view the flag on the countries article. Just plain out saying the country of location of an airport is enough to give the user a sense of which countries have the busiest routes. KDTW Flyer (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- Flags in this case are purely decorative. So far, the arguments in favour of keeping them are against WP:NOTRAVEL.--Jetstreamer Talk 15:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- The flags don't give any indication of the country unless you already know the flag for that country. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- Flags in this case are purely decorative. So far, the arguments in favour of keeping them are against WP:NOTRAVEL.--Jetstreamer Talk 15:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
U.S. state flags do give "encyclopedic" value as most readers know state flags [dubious ] within their flight region of the country. Yes, as mentioned by others, a destination map would be preferred if an airport serves 3 or more airports, though for airports with only one or two destinations the flag is a quick reference before a business trip. No 'policy' exists for or against state flags folks. AirOpsExecnPlt (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- AirOpsExecnPlt Any"usefulness" you are describing is for people using the article as a guide book - this is exactly what makes such usefulness and thus the flags unencyclopaedic - and MOS:FLAG says "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality" which these flags in this situation clearly do not. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
After careful thought, I conclude that there should be discussion beyond MOS:Flag. I came to this conclusion because I saw that Real Madrid beat Juventus 4-1 and then looked up Juventus, then Arsenal, then Manchester United. The managers all have flags next to their names even though they are not on the Italian, English, or other team. Try and change that and you'll have a big Wikipedia war. We can look at MOS:Flag but that MOS really needs to be tighten up and better defined/applied. In the mean time, we should discuss how flags are useful and not useful.
After random and not careful thought, London City Airport's route to the USA may be of interest because it is odd but overlooked without a flag, highlighted with a flag. Flags on the Indianapolis (USA) International Airport might seem repetitive showing just a sea of American flags. I have not come to an opinion yet, but flags in the London City Airport article, if permitted, would be far more useful than Indianapolis International Airport. Just as a brainstorming measure, how about no routine use of flags but use with exceptional airports? How would one even write up a guideline like that? Vanguard10 (talk) 05:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- After reading Vanguard10's message, I am going to be more open on letting the flags stay, they do serve as an important tool to "highlight" the routes. I like the idea of just adding flags to the special routes such as the City to JFK. But I don't think that it's possible; how will we ever agree on whether a route is special? What will the criteria be? --KDTW Flyer (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- I am of the opinion that flags would serve an encyclopaedic purpose to highlight routes, but it would be impossible to write up a guideline for 'exceptional' airports - that would be too much of a slippery slope for many project participants. But would flags be better placed in articles about major international airports when discussing international routes? It would be not at all useful to employ flags for airports which only have domestic routes, or mostly domestic routes (e.g. La Guardia). Flags help with identification of countries at a quick glance, thereby helping the reader. Although they do serve a decorative purpose, it's actually helpful with an underlying encyclopaedic purpose too. An airport doesn't represent a country, but major international hubs like London Heathrow or Frankfurt are the backbone to the transport infrastructure of that particular country. st170e 15:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Purely decorative in my opinion, goes for the below discussion as well. Only useful if you actually recognize the flag, and even so seems more guide-ish. Inviting jkd4855 to join the discussion here. Garretka (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I belive that airport flags are important for domestic airports in the USA to highlight what state they are in. This is very important for a person who does not know the USA well to tell them about what state airports are in. By clicking on any of these flags you get directed to the states page. what is also important to note is users are not required to follow those guidelines to add to a page. So as long as the editor feels the need to do so they may do so. nonetheless i am very glad we are having this conversation to clear up the misunderstanding, if in 24 hours the majority of oppions state that we do not approve of this i will stop adding flags and encourage others to do the same. but if the majority of the votes say we can i will continue to add flags, and encourage other users to not delete flags and to create more. i would also like to thank Garretka for inviting me into this conversation. Jkd4855 (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- The conversation is the conversation below.Andrewgprout (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Seasonal flights
I'm having a disagreement with an editor about seasonal flights. The another editor is saying that Eurowings flights from Glasgow Airport to Düsseldorf Airport are seasonal as they stop for one week in January. I know that it is sometimes unclear whether a route is seasonal or not but listing it as seasonal when it stops for one week only is crazy in my opinion. It would want to be stopped for 3-4 weeks at a minimum to be considered seasonal. Any input appreciated, thanks, VG31 12:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm on the other side of this argument. See the flights are 4x weekly from end of October through to just after new year 2018. The flights then Stop before starting up again at 2x weekly over a week later. The difference in weekly frequency here suggests seasonality whereas if the flights were 4x weekly the whole time with only a short break, then it would be less suspicious. However the 2x frequency suggests the airline is re-introducing the flights after the break - therefore seasonal. I strongly believe this is seasonal as the airline clearly doesn't have sufficient passenger demand for January and that explains the no ops in the middle of January and the re-introduction at 2x weekly. Futurepilot1999 17:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- It's very minor details like this that make me question the encyclopaedic value of a one week break being declared as seasonal. In my opinion, a one week break is not enough to declare the service as seasonal. Garretka (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Exactly, a month without any flights might be different but one week is not notable. The flights changing in frequency doesn't matter, they're still not seasonal. VG31 17:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- A good rule of thumb is that a route must operate at least once in every month of the year to be declared "year-round", otherwise its seasonal. In this case, the route is clearly year round. Stinger20 (talk) 04:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- In this case I would definitely agree that a service suspension of a week or so out of a whole year does not make a service seasonal. Unofficially (in that it isn't written exactly like this at WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT) most of us have been following the policy that provided the airline operates the route every month of the year, the service is not regarded as seasonal in the Airlines and destinations tables. However this itself is open to some disparity - an airline for example 'suspending' a service from 30 November to 1 January (1 month of no operation) would have the route listed as seasonal (because there are no flights in December), while an airline suspending a route from 2 December to 30 January (2 months of no operation) would have the route listed as year-round as there is at least one flight operated in each calendar month of the year. That doesn't seem an accurate / fair representation. SempreVolando (talk) 07:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
- A good rule of thumb is that a route must operate at least once in every month of the year to be declared "year-round", otherwise its seasonal. In this case, the route is clearly year round. Stinger20 (talk) 04:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- Exactly, a month without any flights might be different but one week is not notable. The flights changing in frequency doesn't matter, they're still not seasonal. VG31 17:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm going to start removing unreferenced charter flights, this is not on, anyone can add anything they like to their favourite airport to boost its image, in any case charters are unreliable, they are mostly never referenced and even if so the information is no guarentee wether the service is continuing or ended with just a handful of flights for a few weeks or months at the most a full season.139.190.175.128 (talk) 11:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Try to find if the charter is still running before removing it. At least check the airport's website as (smaller airports in particular) often have a timetable for the charter flights or links to the travel agents where you can look up the flights. Thanks, VG31 17:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- It's very minor details like this that make me question the encyclopaedic value of a one week break being declared as seasonal. In my opinion, a one week break is not enough to declare the service as seasonal. Garretka (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm having a similar problem on the Pittsburgh International Airport page with a particular IP user as well. United operates a route between PIT and SFO that operates year round except for January and February most likely because of low demand. PIT's website [1] lists this flight as year round on their route map and so that is how it's been listed on the page. However, this user insists that it is seasonal due to the brief hiatus but can't provide a valid source to verify their reasoning. Rather than continuing an edit war, I'm coming here. Let me know anyone's thoughts on this issue. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Important note: United's schedule currently shows the flight as operating year-round, but the IP user is saying that United will remove the flight from its schedule later on in the year, without providing any definitive proof. While there was a two-month hiatus in the service earlier this year, after the schedule initially showed flights operating during this off-period, that to me isn't a good enough reason. Just because it happened in the past, there's no guarantee it'll happen in the future. JamesRenard (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Just a suggestion - but the word seasonal implies something to do with seasons. Perhaps a policy that if out of the four seasons of the year (or two if you live in tropical regions) flights operate in all four seasons then it's a year round service, while if it does not operate in one or more seasons, then the flight is seasonal ? If we consider a flight that operates on the first day of each month of the year but in every calendar month of the year, then it would be harder to call this seasonal. Interested to hear the thoughts of others. Pmbma (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. A flight (or "service") is seasonal if limited to one season, or perhaps more than one. But a "season" can be either meteorological ("summer", "spring", ...) or it can be bound to an activity (the skiing season, the football season) or even to a social phenomenon (the summer holiday season). Come to think of it, if "seasonal flight" is such a vague definition presently, it is because "season" is not well defined. Jan olieslagers (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi guys! I'm here to put forward my proposal to change the way seasonal flights are identified. Currently we seem to have the policy that if a flight operates in each calendar month then it is "year round" but I (along with other users) believe that this isn't an accurate or good way of classifying seasonal flights. This leads to flights being marked as year round when they only have 1 flight in January and start back at the end of February. So they have around 7 weeks break! That isn't year round and should be listed as seasonal - yet under this rule these flights are year round!! This rule needs to be relaxed and some common sense used. If the flights stops for a week or two in January then they are obviously not seasonal however in some examples - like above - the flight would be seasonal. I have seen a lot of flights being marked as year round recently despite the fact they have over a months break (sometimes even up to 7 or 8 weeks break). This is completely inaccurate to mark as year round since it obviously isn't year round if there's a month or longer break! I have also seen a lot of editors refer to SempreVolando one comment regarding seasonal flights and are using his comment like it is the bible! I don't mean to single you out and I understand you doubt this policy too, but we need more than one editor to agree with this for it to be used on all the Wikipedia airport pages! This rule isn't set in stone if one editor has voiced his opinion about it! We need a discussion about this to see what the consensus is. I'm interested in what others have to say. Futurepilot1999 (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- I think if there is a period of one month without any flights that the destination should be regarded as seasonal. I agree that there should be a clear consensus on this as it's very ambiguous currently. VG31 12:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- No problem singling me out. My edits certainly aren't 'the bible', nor do I wish them to be! Consensus is definitely key, and I have simply been sticking with the (rather loose) consensus reached many years ago (but which wasn't ever written formally at WP:AIRPORTS), rather than have one criteria applied by some editors and a different criteria by others. As you noted I raised the same issue as you earlier in the discussion with the example of how unfair the simplistic definition can be, with a one month break in operation potentially being listed as 'seasonal' while a close to two month break might still make it to the 'year round' definition, not very logical!
- I think what we need is to come to a consensus as a group about how we tighten up the wording at WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT, which currently reads: "For flights that do not operate year round, destinations should be listed on a separate line from year-round destinations, with seasonal destinations listed after the Seasonal label, e.g. "Seasonal: Chicago–O'Hare"."'
- My proposal is that it should either read:
- OPTION A: "For flights that do not operate in every calendar month of the year, destinations should be listed on a separate line from year-round destinations, with seasonal destinations listed after the Seasonal label, e.g. "Seasonal: Chicago–O'Hare"."
- or,
- OPTION B: "For flights that do not operate for an extended period of the year (five weeks or more), destinations should be listed on a separate line from year-round destinations, with seasonal destinations listed after the Seasonal label, e.g. "Seasonal: Chicago–O'Hare"."
- Feel free to discuss, amend or add alternative options, or bin the idea completely! For the record I would be comfortable with either of these two (OPTION A is simpler, OPTION B is 'fairer'), but I think it's time to have a more formalised wording on this which we can refer to, in order to have a consistent policy and to prevent the edit wars which are occurring (and yes, I am partly responsible for those too!). Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for every one who has replied so far! I personally would prefer an Option like B whereby if a route was stopped for longer than 4 weeks (e.g. longer than a month in time but it isn't constricted to a particular month - so 4 continuous weeks or longer over any month) for a route to be named seasonal. I think 4 weeks is a considerable time to be stopped for and this is the length of time already used but by allowing it to be a continuous time rather than a particular month, it allows a more fairer system to exist. I believe this would result in a much more accurate and fairer way of doing things, leaving less doubt for us editors and leaving less room for anomalies to occur (like the recent Jet2 flights which would be seasonal and the Eurowing flights from DUB to DUS). Futurepilot1999 (talk) 12:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Option B is best, many airlines have been moving from the traditional calendar seasonal operation to extended periods through winter. 4 to 6 week gap is a reasonable period to determine if it can be considered seasonal or year round. Jamie2k9 (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry to disagree. A "flight" or "service" is seasonal if limited to one season, or perhaps to a few. But, as I stated elsewhere, "season" can mean many things. "The skiing season", "the summer holiday season", "the autumn", .... But the duration of service, or the duration of interruption, has nothing to do with seasons. Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Seasonal can mean restricted to a certain time of the year, it doesn't have to correspond to any definable season, i.e. summer, winter, spring or autumn. VG31 13:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- It DOES mean "restricted to a certain time of the year" as per definition of "season". What else is a season but a certain time of the year? But I already indicated that, besides the meteorological seasons summer/autumn/winter/spring there are also the skiing season, the summer holiday season, &c &c, perhaps even the shopping season in certain regions. But "seasonal" can never be defined in terms of "so many weeks of service" or "never less than so much interruption". "Seasonal" must always refer to a season, of whatever kind. Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Seasonal can mean restricted to a certain time of the year, it doesn't have to correspond to any definable season, i.e. summer, winter, spring or autumn. VG31 13:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry to disagree. A "flight" or "service" is seasonal if limited to one season, or perhaps to a few. But, as I stated elsewhere, "season" can mean many things. "The skiing season", "the summer holiday season", "the autumn", .... But the duration of service, or the duration of interruption, has nothing to do with seasons. Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Option B is best, many airlines have been moving from the traditional calendar seasonal operation to extended periods through winter. 4 to 6 week gap is a reasonable period to determine if it can be considered seasonal or year round. Jamie2k9 (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for every one who has replied so far! I personally would prefer an Option like B whereby if a route was stopped for longer than 4 weeks (e.g. longer than a month in time but it isn't constricted to a particular month - so 4 continuous weeks or longer over any month) for a route to be named seasonal. I think 4 weeks is a considerable time to be stopped for and this is the length of time already used but by allowing it to be a continuous time rather than a particular month, it allows a more fairer system to exist. I believe this would result in a much more accurate and fairer way of doing things, leaving less doubt for us editors and leaving less room for anomalies to occur (like the recent Jet2 flights which would be seasonal and the Eurowing flights from DUB to DUS). Futurepilot1999 (talk) 12:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I think you are applying the literal definition of 'seasonal' (i.e. according to a particular season of the year), whereas we are using the term in the context of airport articles to mean the opposite of year-round, i.e. intermittent, interrupted, periodic, on certain occasions, etc, which it can also be used to mean. SempreVolando (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- You read me very well, thanks! I do mean that "seasonal" should really be applied only to services that are tied to one season - or perhaps to more than one. Services that are intermittent or periodic or ad hoc or whatever should be mentioned as such and not as seasonal. Applying terminology verbatim is a prime characteristic of an encyclopedia, IMHO. Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Only listing services as "seasonal" when they operate for the summer or winter is madness and, in my opinion, a set back from what we have right now. It doesn't accurately represent the seasonality of the routes listed. Yeah - seasonal does have heavy connotations of summer, winter etc etc but in the context of aviation seasonality is to do with the high peak season (normally in Summer for Sun routes or Winter for Ski) and the corresponding low season. Some routes stop and others don't (due to business travel etc) but listing routes as "seasonal" reflects routes stopping not what season they operate in. Futurepilot1999 (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Who said "only the summer or winter" ??? I have repeatedly stated it may also indicate the apple blossom season or the ski season or the lingerie season or the shopping season or the Bratwurst season or whatever. But "seasonal" must refer to a season, lest it be meaningless. Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Or, in other words, if wanting to state "not year-round", label as "not year-round" but do not label it "seasonal". You can then have as much fun as you wish, arguing and deciding when a service is year-round or not. But seasonal is seasonal, point à la ligne. Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Is anybody else wanting to put their point across? Consensus so far appears to be (mostly) for something like option B where there is a 4 or 5 week break. Futurepilot1999 (talk) 07:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- I would support Option B, but would disagree with a 4 week definition. 4 weeks is only 28 days - less than a month which would usually be 30/31 days. Take an airline which operated a route all year round up till and including 2nd December. Then they took a break and kicked off again with a flight on 31st December. That is a break of 28 days with no flights (4 weeks). Personally, I don't think that gap warrants a Seasonal tag, as it's less than a month. But we can't refer to a 'month' in the guideline because it is ambiguous, and not a fixed period (a month can differ in length of days in 4 ways 27/28/30/31, which will lead to arguments).
- 5 weeks (35 days) is a good compromise I think. Slightly more than any 'month', but not significantly longer (so we can't have the issue of flights ceased for nearly 2 months still making it into the year-round list, as in my example near the start of the discussion). On reflection the wording should also be unambiguous to avoid potential future disagreements, for example "For flights that do not operate for a continuous period exceeding 5 weeks (35 days), destinations should be listed...." SempreVolando (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Is anybody else wanting to put their point across? Consensus so far appears to be (mostly) for something like option B where there is a 4 or 5 week break. Futurepilot1999 (talk) 07:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Only listing services as "seasonal" when they operate for the summer or winter is madness and, in my opinion, a set back from what we have right now. It doesn't accurately represent the seasonality of the routes listed. Yeah - seasonal does have heavy connotations of summer, winter etc etc but in the context of aviation seasonality is to do with the high peak season (normally in Summer for Sun routes or Winter for Ski) and the corresponding low season. Some routes stop and others don't (due to business travel etc) but listing routes as "seasonal" reflects routes stopping not what season they operate in. Futurepilot1999 (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Destination Countries
Can we get airports to list the country they fly to in addition to the airports? It really isn't helpful to have these broad lists of destinations but then you have to click each one to see which country it is in. LordAtlas (talk) 00:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Destinations with only inbound flights
Hi there, I would like to know whether we can add destinations which have connections only one-way, to be precious, inbound only. For example, Indigo Airlines operates Hyderabad - Chennai - Madurai with same flight number (6E 381) whereas the return flight goes only till Chennai. Can we add both Hyderabad and Chennai under "Airlines and Destinations" for Indigo airlines in Madurai Airport or only Chennai? The actual discussion is in Talk:Madurai_Airport#Indigo_Destinations. In my understanding, "Airlines and destinations" means the particular airport is connected to so-and-so destinations by so-and-so airline, be it inbound or outbound. Correct me if my understanding is wrong. Amdmustafa (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- something similar takes place at Regina and Saskatoon. Air Canada operates Regina to Saskatoon but not vice versa. The rule I have been following is the destination must be served from the airport, which is why Saskatoon is listed on Regina's page but not vice versa. Please discuss if you or anyone feels differently. Garretka (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Flags in destinations table
I am having a issue on the Rhinelander-Oneida County Airport page regarding flags. Flag keeps getting added to this page by a user saying that flags are permitted. Since when do some airports get some extra treatment on this but not others. I directed the user to WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT saying that flags are not allowed but the user replied saying that we are not required to followed the guidelines. I believe this has been discussed before but not sure. If someone could direct me to the appropriate discussion, best appreciated. 107.77.219.35 (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- yeah there seems to be a view by a couple of people that because thy don't like the established consensus at WP:AIRPORTS and WP:MOSFLAGS that they can simply ignore such. Andrewgprout (talk) 04:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Andrewgprout i give up white flag on the flags Jkd4855 (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Terminal information in airline and destination tables
This has just come to my attention. There is fundamentally NO argument to ever remove information from Wikipedia. Only add information, or improve information. If some of you feel the information "shouldn't be here," why would it matter? Who is it bothering? The information is not adding clutter, or subtracting from the overall value of the page. There is no consistent source for airline terminal information anywhere else. This was the only place. I am going to bring an army of people to lobby this to be reversed, and that terminal information in airline and destination tables be put back. (173.55.241.240 (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC))
- Well, obviously you have not looked at other discussions very closely, a strong consensus was reached that they should be removed above. I am for including this information in other ways, I don't think its unencylocpedic by nature, just in the way is was presented (Also, sourcing was horrendous). Stinger20 (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- See IND's airport page, I think this a much better way to present the terminal information, though I would suggest listing it by Concourse/Temrinal in the header column and then listing the airlines in that terminal in the second column: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indianapolis_International_Airport#IND_Concourse_Information. Stinger20 (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- I must say I do not like that at all. That still, in my opinion, violates WP:NOTTRAVEL. Terminal layouts do not belong on Wikipedia. I would also like to take this chance to say I am against adding the searchable timetables as this is readily available information and is borderline advertisement. Garretka (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- I concur with Garretka. Garretka, what are you referring to when you say "searchable timetables"? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 02:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- I mean the third column being replaced with refs. While I support the idea of referencing I don't this that is the approach that should be taken. Garretka (talk) 02:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- Garretka I agree that the third column idea for referencing is problematic, I have until now held off saying so as I in no way want to discourage people adding appropriate references to information in Wikipedia. I do not see why referencing for these tables cannot work like the whole of the rest of Wikipedia works, 1. someone adds a fact, if everybody agrees it is a "cool" fact nothing happens 2. if the fact needs to be referenced so be it - it is referenced in the best way possible or the fact deleted, and 3. references are only deleted when the fact that it is supporting is deleted - mostly because you have no idea why the reference was added in the first place. Thus my view on referencing is that (if we assume that the destination tables are the best way to encyclopaedically present destination information on airport pages - which for the moment I am doing) the status quo is only slightly broken. It is broken only in that mostly IP editors misinterpret the guidance of WP:AIRPORTS as trumping the core policies of Wikipedia and continue to wholesale remove valid references to facts, normally without explaination, but sometimes with comments like "running routes do not need references" or even "its messy and confuses me" which is simply not what WP:AIRPORTS says and is against WP:V and all sorts of other core policies. I note your comment above about many references being for start dates and do not support the continuation or even the actual commencement of any said route - in my view such references are often very very weak, but they are often the only WP:SECONDARY reference available, but despite this weakness they are still valid in that they by definition indicate some level of confidence that the route is (or maybe was) a valid route and such references should only be deleted with caution and always with an explaination. Andrewgprout (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- I mean the third column being replaced with refs. While I support the idea of referencing I don't this that is the approach that should be taken. Garretka (talk) 02:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- I concur with Garretka. Garretka, what are you referring to when you say "searchable timetables"? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 02:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- I must say I do not like that at all. That still, in my opinion, violates WP:NOTTRAVEL. Terminal layouts do not belong on Wikipedia. I would also like to take this chance to say I am against adding the searchable timetables as this is readily available information and is borderline advertisement. Garretka (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I would like to respectfully request that the terminal information be restored. I have been using that for YEARS and don't understand for the life of me why Wikipedia would actively remove information that is useful. Aviation professionals constantly keep the information up to date and it has just always been a wonderful resource. I have yet to read one cogent explanation for why it was actively removed. Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.65.164.192 (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- I was in favor of keeping this information. Basically most of the contributors claimed or supported that is was against WP:NOTTRAVEL, considering that this information is ONLY useful for travellers (which I persist to consider it is untrue). Since then we have every week other readers who come back to dispute the result of the discussion, which demonstrates in my opinion that the removal was not appropriate. Wykx (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- It seems that terminal/concourse information alongside airline and destination information no more violates WP:NOTTRAVEL than the airline and destination information itself. In fact, a case could be made that airline terminal/concourse/gate assignments are more related to a particular airport's relevant information than the destinations that are flown by airlines from that airport. As a first time commenter, I count myself among the Wikipedia readers, many of whom I suspect remain silent because they can't figure out how to work these talk pages, distressed by the removal of this valuable encyclopedic information. While I understand and appreciate Stinger20's point above about the IND airport's page having a separate table for terminal/concourse/gate information, could I please ask, why is a separate table that re-lists all airlines preferable to simply having a third column in the existing table? What harm is done by having this third column? Furthermore, isn't this all the more true when there is a relationship between airline-destination combination and terminal/concourse/gate, such as with BA at LHR (T5 and T3), or with AS at SFO (International-A for all destinations except for T2 for Seattle)? This information isn't meant as a travel guide (I'd of course use my airline's mobile app to find my gate for a specific flight), but rather as a core factor of how the airport is arranged and operates.
- Perhaps the most important point of all is that the association of terminals with airlines and their destinations from an airport has been one of the most valuable components of most all relevant airport Wikipedia pages for more than a decade! Just take a look back at the 2006-2007 previous versions of major airport pages. Therefore, on behalf of the population of Wikipedia users who are inactive as editors but are very active as readers, I beg of you that you please not revoke this valuable information from us readers who have relied on it for so long. If this information has for over 10 years been centrally important and heavily utilized, why is it that it all of a sudden became repugnant in early 2017? Furthermore, why should all of us users who keep being forced to raise our voices on here for the first time have to be made to beg? Aharwood09 (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- "If this information has for over 10 years been centrally important and heavily utilized, why is it that it all of a sudden became repugnant in early 2017?" Because someone decided it was a violation of WP:NOTTRAVEL, even though there is far more 'travel' information on other articles which isn't removed. Removing the terminal information is a very regressive step. It's not really travel information and is useful information to have on airport pages. This decision should be reconsidered considering the consensus reached was quite weak. There was never any proper vote on actually remove the information and was rather just a few users deciding what should happen which cannot be described as consensus. VG31 10:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- Consensus can change.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- "If this information has for over 10 years been centrally important and heavily utilized, why is it that it all of a sudden became repugnant in early 2017?" Because someone decided it was a violation of WP:NOTTRAVEL, even though there is far more 'travel' information on other articles which isn't removed. Removing the terminal information is a very regressive step. It's not really travel information and is useful information to have on airport pages. This decision should be reconsidered considering the consensus reached was quite weak. There was never any proper vote on actually remove the information and was rather just a few users deciding what should happen which cannot be described as consensus. VG31 10:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes, I want to see where airlines are in an airport. I really don't care to use it for travel information but want to know if British Airways mainly uses such and such terminal and if their partners use the same terminal or not. I have not come to a conclusion but do know that the information has some uses. Vanguard10 (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Due to the large number of neutral users who keep coming back to claim terminals to be re-added on airports pages, I propose to reinstate it. Wykx (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
- I formerly worked in urban planning at a major airport and am still curious about the industry. Terminal locations and movements are a big part of land planning and facilities usage. While I may personally have looked at it for travel information once or twice before, I also utilize it to understand airport development, service expansion, and facilities usage. Airports are critical infrastructure projects and the way airlines use terminals is key to understanding capital improvements.2601:14D:8000:7698:95D5:2986:B162:8CC0 (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I am also in favor of reinstating terminal information at commercial airports. Honestly, I thought the removal of this information was due to security concerns, which seemed legitimate. Then I read comments like "Wikipedia is not a travel guide", and to me, that's simply bogus reasoning to remove information for the would-be traveler, and just the curious reader or "AvGeek". Passengers too. Bring the terminals back. - Squawk7984 (talk) 06:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
IP removing refs
Please be on the lookout for a socking IP removing www.routesonline.com references from airpot articles.
Example: [11]
Found so far:
- 223.206.247.109 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 223.206.250.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 171.4.106.128 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
Many thanks,
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- I've blocked 223.206.240.0/20, and 171.4.106.128 for 72 hours for block evasion. If more IPs pop up, let me know. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Here is a list of all the articles edited by the IPs in case you wish to dump them into your raw watchlist (no bullets):
Beijing Capital International Airport Changsha Huanghua International Airport Da Nang International Airport Daegu International Airport Fuzhou Changle International Airport Jomo Kenyatta International Airport Kuala Lumpur International Airport Kunming Changshui International Airport Muscat International Airport Naha Airport Nanjing Lukou International Airport New Chitose Airport Phnom Penh International Airport Siem Reap International Airport Soekarno–Hatta International Airport Sydney Airport Tan Son Nhat International Airport
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Anna Frodesiak and Oshwah: Hello there both. I see no issues with the removal in the diff above. The consensus (whether controversial) is not to have citations for current destinations, as they are only required for the start of new services and for the termination of current ones.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, in most cases references aren't needed for current routes as it's quite easy to check if a route is still running by looking at the airlines' timetables or booking engines. References should be kept for charter and cargo routes however as it can be difficult to verify if they are still running. Thanks, VG31 13:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- If you look further up the page there is a consensus for "Option 3: Keep the tables, but something should be done with regards to references and complying with WP:VERIFY." Which would indicate that routes do need references. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- There is consensus for Option 3, but there is no consensus on how to deal with the references.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- There was only a WP:LOCALCONCENSUS. Removing them is not dealing with them. As I understood it dealing with them meant how to go about putting the references in the article. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- There is consensus for Option 3, but there is no consensus on how to deal with the references.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- If you look further up the page there is a consensus for "Option 3: Keep the tables, but something should be done with regards to references and complying with WP:VERIFY." Which would indicate that routes do need references. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Another issue is that when others dispute the removals and revert, and communicate with that editor asking them to stop, then that editor ought to stop. The IP ignores all talk posts and hops to another IP. That is a concern. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- You cannot make a consensus against WP:V the verifiability core principle. Removing references that (however badly) support the fact being presented is absolutely 100% against this principle. Just because the facts can be easily verified (which is debatable - in fact for much of these details there is no real reliable secondary source available) has never meant that it is correct to delete such a reference. Nowhere else on Wikipedia is such a practice tolerated. Andrewgprout (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- I just thought to double check and see exactly what the local consensus actually is. From Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content#Body item #10 says "For current destinations, the implicit reference is the airline's published timetable. If the flight is in the timetable and not challenged, an explicit reference is not normally included." So in this case the destinations have been challenged and a reference is required. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- This once again highlights the fact that gaining consensus on the inclusion of references for all the destinations in airport articles is mandatory. Many people oppose to this, which in my opinion is against the verifiability policy.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- I just thought to double check and see exactly what the local consensus actually is. From Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content#Body item #10 says "For current destinations, the implicit reference is the airline's published timetable. If the flight is in the timetable and not challenged, an explicit reference is not normally included." So in this case the destinations have been challenged and a reference is required. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
More
- 223.206.250.230 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) ...and the talk post
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- 49.48.146.160 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (removing other refs too, no edit summaries)
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- 223.206.232.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 223.207.37.114 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 223.206.247.109 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 223.206.246.213 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 223.206.234.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Please inspect edits. Some changes may be good. Revert what you like.)
Murph9000 (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- 114.109.71.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) IP geolocates to Thailand, just like all of the other IP's; editor is continuing to remove valid citations w/o any explanation whatsoever.
103.11.67.171 (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Not an ipuser, but Metropolinx continues to remove sources above and beyond what the edit descriptions say. This user has been warned three times on the talk page but the behaviour continues. Garretka (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- Pinging Anna Frodesiak for this.--Jetstreamer Talk 16:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Anna Frodesiak, 174.95.53.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) edits seem very similar to previously warned Metropolinx, removing refs conspicuously. Garretka (talk) 07:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Garretka. Yes, that is almost certainly him from the date he started and edit summaries. Would you be a dear (or Jetstreamer) and file an SPI to check? I'm in the middle of somethig off wiki now. If you don't I can handle it tomorrow. Many thanks for spotting this. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- Followup: Garretka kindly filed the SPI. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Comment from Murph9000
Murph9000 wrote:
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Murph9000. Good points. Yes, his IP hopping makes engaging him a problem. When I see him edit, I quickly post at his IP talk in the hopes that he will still use it for the new few minutes and see the message. I will keep a prepared text ready for the next occasion.
- I've been posting with personal messages because warnings don't work and in the hopes that he will speak and we can find out what's going on. Maybe he works for a competing website. Maybe he's bananas. Who knows.
- Blocks seem pointless because he just hops IPs. This may come down to whack-a-mole until he gets the point.
- Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Anna, thanks for copying my comment here, I was unaware of the existing discussion. Yes, the attempt to talk instead of big red shouty templates approach is a quite valid alternative when the templates have failed to generate a response. If nothing else works, it might be possible to use an edit filter, something like the following pseudocode:
if ((IPuser in 223.206.0.0/16 || other known ranges) && articleName contains "Airport" && removed(ref)(or all articles and ref removal with the URLs we have been seeing). I didn't use the real edit filter syntax or variables there, to save me dusting off the documentation. That would be a little more surgical than big range blocks. The IP hopping may well not be deliberate, as the edits are tagged "mobile", so the user may well automatically get a new IP every time they connect to mobile data or as they move between cells. One other consideration is that these edits are coming from Thailand, so there may be a language barrier involved (but they presumably understand some/enough English to target our articles). Murph9000 (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Anna, thanks for copying my comment here, I was unaware of the existing discussion. Yes, the attempt to talk instead of big red shouty templates approach is a quite valid alternative when the templates have failed to generate a response. If nothing else works, it might be possible to use an edit filter, something like the following pseudocode:
- Hi Murph9000. Edit filter, eh? Maybe a good plan. Let's ping dear Samwalton9, my go-to-guy for edit filters. So, Sam, what do you think? Is this serious enough? Should we whack the moles a while longer before considering this? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Murph's pseudocode is certainly reasonable for an edit filter, though I'd be concerned about the seemingly inconclusive discussion above regarding whether these edits are desirable or not. Sam Walton (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Murph9000. Edit filter, eh? Maybe a good plan. Let's ping dear Samwalton9, my go-to-guy for edit filters. So, Sam, what do you think? Is this serious enough? Should we whack the moles a while longer before considering this? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Samwalton9. What I am reading above, and now below, indicates that it is pretty conclusive that there is, and will be, no consensus for removal of this source. The IPs removals are therefore not appropriate, against warnings, and ought to be stopped. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- Testing an edit filter at Special:AbuseFilter/854. Sam Walton (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yay! Thanks, Samwalton9. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Samwalton9 and others. Is this a good edit or bad, and if bad, should the edit filter have prevented it? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- That's certainly a bad edit. Right from the start, it is an unexplained removal. But it also removed a referenced claim for a future event, as required per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT start/end dates guidelines, which were built by consensus.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Samwalton9 and others. Is this a good edit or bad, and if bad, should the edit filter have prevented it? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Folks, this person also removes references other than www.routesonline.com, so please continue to be on the lookout. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Decision about removing www.routesonline.com
Can we get consensus? If the community wishes this website removed from articles, then that would de facto turn this IP into a constructive editor. :) Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- Consensus was reached some time ago on using routesonline as a source. I don't see why it should be removed.--Jetstreamer Talk 11:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with the above. There's no reason for it not to be accepted as a source. VG31 15:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- To clarify, you mean removing routesonline as a source AFTER the route has already started? It's a perfectly valid source that proves accurate with start dates, but the issue I have with keeping them after the route has started is that it doesn't demonstrate the route is actually running. Garretka (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with the above. There's no reason for it not to be accepted as a source. VG31 15:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
What I am reading above indicates that a sudden consensus for removal of this source is very unlikely. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
How are codeshared flights listed in airport articles when they are jointly operated by both airlines? For example: Calm Air flight 300/First Air 700 uses a First Air 737 with First Air crew, but the ground staff are all Calm Air employees, you check in at the Calm Air desk, and the flight is always announced as "Calm Air codeshare with First Air." You can buy tickets from either airline with different fare rules. Each airline lists it as operated by the other on its website. (See: [12], [13]) Should both airlines be listed separately? Or should it be listed as a Calm Air flight operated by First Air (or vice versa)? Samuell Lift me up or put me down 21:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- You would list it as the latter, Calm Air operated by First Air. This is consistent for the most part across the airport articles, you can also see destinations served by NewLeaf are listed as NewLeaf operated by Flair. Codeshare flights are never listed, the primary operator is, but the case you've described warrants how I've explained above. Hope this helps! Garretka (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
- Makes sense, thanks. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 02:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Kano: only KLM?
Please take a look at Mallam Aminu Kano International Airport and its talk page. It is claimed that KLM was the only European airline to fly here but I am sure Sabena flew there too, at one time. Jan olieslagers (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- Here's an excerpt from a webpage about the history of the airport:
In the first decades of its operation, the airport was an important fuel stop for airliners flying long-haul services between Europe and Africa. Until the mid-1990s, it was the second-most active airport in Nigeria. At the time, more than half of the international flights into the country chose Kano as either the final destination, a transit point or stopover field. International airlines like British Caledonian, KLM, Iberia and Saudia favoured the airport not only because of its safety record, but also because its handling facilities ensured a quick turnaround. ... However, with the economic downturn of the 1980s and 1990s things began to change. Newer aircraft did not need fuel stops, and with the demise of the Kano economy, many international airlines stopped serving the airport. KLM became the only European airline to continue serving Kano, which they had done without interruption since 1947. In the wake of its misfortune, the airport’s average traffic fell to fewer than six flights a day. ... After decades of uninterrupted service, KLM announced that from June 1, 2012, its Amsterdam-Abuja-Kano-Amsterdam flights would cease.
Removing terminal information from airport pages.
Wikipedia was founded on the premise that all information should be available to all people. That's why it is inconceivable that any valid, sourced information that was once available should be removed. A short while ago, terminal information for individual airlines was provided on every airport Wikipedia page. This provided an invaluable resource to me as a flyer, often planning my connections armed with terminal information from Wikipedia. I could just go on a Wikipedia page for an airport and all the info was there. So, why on earth would people remove this valuable information? I love Wikipedia as a platform, but this seems to go against everything Wikipedia stands for. So, I ask all community content-editors to think before they delete, "Is this information useful to someone?". In the case of airline terminal assignment information, the information is quite useful to legions of Wikipedia users and supporters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.97.51.120 (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- This is not a travel guide.--Jetstreamer Talk 01:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- Although the main discussion is above, the center of this whole conflict is this (IMO) flawed notion that describing which airlines service which terminal makes it a "travel guide". Which it isn't. It is just factual reference information. But I suspect with great dread that removing all of the destination tables completely will be next. --Mezaco (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- No, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. But it is an ever-evolving encyclopedia, read not just by the passenger but also the curious and those consumed by wanderlust. I commented further above in Topic 3, Terminal information in airline and destination tables. Reinstate terminal information. - Squawk7984 (talk) 06:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- Although the main discussion is above, the center of this whole conflict is this (IMO) flawed notion that describing which airlines service which terminal makes it a "travel guide". Which it isn't. It is just factual reference information. But I suspect with great dread that removing all of the destination tables completely will be next. --Mezaco (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a travel guide! (link to Wikipedia article, travel guide <) Of course it is not!
Even IF the designation of airlines to a terminal at the world's largest airports were only of interest to travellers, to read the figures released by IATA for 2016 would make for quite some hefty BILLIONS of targeted travellers and thus potential Wikipedia readers interested.
- IATA. Air Passenger Market Analysis. PDF: https://www.iata.org/en/iata-repository/publications/economic-reports/air-passenger-monthly-analysis---dec-2016/
IATA. Another Strong Year for Air Travel Demand in 2016 http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2017-02-02-01.aspx
There is some obfuscation of fact in regard to this matter. We are in an age, the age of terrorism, where a tube of your own personal toothpaste is taken from your ownership by airport security before boarding of your aircraft is permissible. And so we might observe that sensitivities of specific locality may be considered to be necessarily limited that they might not impinge too close to the realm of temptation for those who might wish ill to their fellow man. — Wikipedia is not only not a travel guide, it is not an aid to terrorists!
I notice with great embarrassment those contributors to this discussion who in their own boats are not willing to bump, broadside, the hulls of the arguing crafts of the executives of Wikipedia editing.
Any RFC opened by Wykx (talk) may have to it added these observations when considered contributory, which they certainly are, though I have chosen a direct tone that is hardly encyclopediacly conversational.--Laurencebeck (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC) – I have corrected an external link in this my above contribution.--Laurencebeck (talk) 06:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Frontier Service Expansion
Looking for assistance here. There has been some persistent edits on Calgary's airport page regarding frontier flights to Denver. There is a source provided, however the source does not mention an exact date, and the date in the article is listed as spring 2018. This page is semi-protected, and I do not have confirmed access, however I have raised this on the page talk, pinging the responsible editor, who has been since active, to no avail. Again, just looking for input and want to make editors aware that an exact date is required per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. Thanks Garretka (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Unreferenced Cargo additions
There is a user, editing both under a user name (Leon103102) and an IP address (73.158.81.251) adding many cargo routes which are not sourced. The user is insistent that the routes exist, however, none of the routes appear to be operating per http://info.flightmapper.net/search, https://www.flightradar24.com, and https://flightaware.com/. I have tried requesting the user to use sources for their claims, however, they continue to ignore my comments.
Here are the pages being edited most disruptively being edited: - Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport - McClellan Airfield - Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport
Airports names cleansing
Hello, can we imagine/request a bot that would run time to time to clean airports names inside airport-dest-list template and redirections and unify them ? For instance,
- [[La Tontouta International Airport|Noumea]]
- [[Noumea Tontouta International Airport|Noumea]]
- [[La Tontouta International Airport|Nouméa]]
- [[Noumea Tontouta International Airport|Nouméa]]
- [[Noumea Tontouta International Airport|Nouméa-La Tontouta]]
etc would become uniquely [[La Tontouta International Airport|Nouméa-La Tontouta]] ==> It would help easy copy-paste between the wikis in different languages --Bouzinac (talk) 11:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- possible but ill advised. There is really no requirement that these names are the same in each table. The requirement should be that they are sensible within a table This means that some variation should be expected.Andrewgprout (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Here's some samples what I found on correction when translating Eng>Fra, does it make sense to keep such differences ?
[[Arlanda Airport|Stockholm]]
[[Stockholm Arlanda|Stockholm-Arlanda]]
[[Stockholm Arlanda Airport|Arlanda]]
[[Stockholm-Arlanda]]
[[Arlanda Airport|Stockholm-Arlanda]]
[[Stockholm-Arlanda Airport|Stockholm]]
[[Stockholm Arlanda Airport|Stockholm-Arlanda]]
[[Stockholm-Arlanda Airport|Stockholm-Arlanda]]
[[Stockholm Arlanda Airport|Stockholm–Arlanda]]
[[Stockholm–Arlanda Airport|Stockholm–Arlanda]]
[[Stockholm Arlanda Airport|Stockholm Arlanda]]
[[Charles de Gaulle Airport|Charles de Gaulle]]
[[Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport|Paris-Charles de Gaulle]]
[[Roissy Charles de Gaulle Airport|Paris-Charles de Gaulle]]
[[Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport|Paris-Charles de Gaulle]]
[[Charles de Gaulle Airport|Paris-Charles de Gaulle]]
[[Paris-Charles de Gaulle]]
[[Charles de Gaulle Airport|Paris–Charles Gaulle]]
[[Paris–Charles de Gaulle]]
[[Paris–Charles de Gaulle Airport|Paris–Charles de Gaulle]]
[[Charles de Gaulle Airport|Paris–Charles de Gaulle]]
[[Charles de Gaulle Airport (Roissy Airport)|Charles de Gaulle (Roissy )]]
[[Kyiv Zhuliany International Airport|Kiev-Zhulyany]]
[[Kyiv International Airport|Kiev-Zhuliany]]
[[Kiev Airport|Kiev-Zhuliany]]
[[Kiev International Airport (Zhuliany)|Kiev-Zhuliany]]
[[Zhuliany Airport|Kiev-Zhuliany]]
[[Kyiv International Airport (Zhuliany)|Kyiv-Zhuliany]]
[[Kyiv International Airport (Zhuliany)|Kiev-Zhulyany]]
[[Kiev Zhuliany Airport|Kyiv-Zhuliany]]
[[Kyiv International Airport (Zhuliany)|Kiev-Zhuliany]]
[[Kyiv International Airport (Zhuliany)|Kyiv (Zhuliany)]]
[[Istanbul Ataturk International Airport|Istanbul-Atatürk]]
[[Atatürk Airport|Istanbul-Atatürk]]
[[Atatürk International Airport|Istanbul-Ataturk]]
[[Istanbul Atatürk Airport|Istanbul]]
[[Ataturk International Airport|Istanbul-Atatürk]]
[[Istanbul Ataturk Airport|Istanbul-Atatürk]]
[[Istanbul Ataturk Airport|Istanbul-Ataturk]]
[[Atatürk International Airport|Atatürk]]
[[Atatürk International Airport|Istanbul-Atatürk]]
[[Istanbul-Atatürk]]
[[Istanbul Ataturk Airport|Istanbul]]
[[Atatürk International Airport|Istanbul–Atatürk]]
[[Istanbul Atatürk Airport|Istanbul-Atatürk]]
[[Istanbul Atatürk Airport|Istanbul–Atatürk]]
[[Istanbul Atatürk Airport|Istanbul Atatürk]]
[[O. R. Tambo International Airport|Johannesburg-OR Tambo]]
[[O.R. Tambo International Airport|Johannesburg-O.R. Tambo]]
[[O. R. Tambo International Airport|Johannesburg-O.R. Tambo]]
[[OR Tambo International Airport|Johannesburg-O.R. Tambo]]
[[OR Tambo International Airport|Johannesburg-Tambo]]
[[O. R. Tambo International Airport|Johannesburg–Tambo]]
[[O. R. Tambo International Airport|Johannesburg–O. R. Tambo]]
[[OR Tambo International Airport|Johannesburg]]
[[OR Tambo International Airport|Johannesburg-OR Tambo]]
[[O. R. Tambo International Airport|O. R. Tambo]]
[[OR Tambo International Airport|Johannesburg-O. R. Tambo]]
[[Keflavik Airport|Reykjavik-Keflavik]]
[[Keflavík International Airport|Reykjavik-Kelflavik]]
[[Keflavik Airport|Reykjavik-Keflavík]]
[[Keflavík International Airport|Reykjavík-Keflavik]]
[[Keflavik International Airport|Reykjavík-Keflavík]]
[[Keflavík International Airport|Reykjavik-Keflavik]]
[[Keflavík International Airport|Reykjavik-Keflavík]]
[[Keflavík International Airport|Reykjavík-Keflavík]]
[[Keflavik Airport|Reykjavík–Keflavík]]
[[Keflavik International Airport|Reykjavik-Keflavik]]
[[Keflavík International Airport|Reykjavík–Keflavík]]
[[Keflavík International Airport|Keflavík]]
[[Keflavík International Airport|Reykjavík]]
[[Madrid Barajas Airport|Barajas]]
[[Madrid Barajas International Airport|Madrid]]
[[Madrid Barajas|Madrid]]
[[Adolfo Suárez Madrid-Barajas Airport|Madrid]]
[[Barajas Airport|Madrid]]
[[Adolfo Suárez Madrid–Barajas Airport|Madrid]]
[[Madrid Barajas Airport|Madrid]]
[[Madrid Airport|Madrid]]
[[Madrid-Barajas Airport|Madrid]]
[[Madrid–Barajas Airport|Madrid]]
[[Adolfo Suárez Madrid–Barajas Airport|Adolfo Suárez Madrid–Barajas]]
[[Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport|Minneapolis/St Paul]]
[[Minneapolis/Saint Paul International Airport|Minneapolis/Saint Paul]]
[[Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport|Minneapolis-Saint Paul]]
[[Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport|Minneapolis/St. Paul]]
[[Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport|Minneapolis/St. Paul]]
[[Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport|Minneapolis/St.Paul]]
[[Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport|Minneapolis/St. Paul]]
[[Minneapolis−Saint Paul International Airport|Minneapolis/St. Paul]]
[[Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport|Minneapolis-Saint Paul]]
[[Minneapolis–Saint Paul International Airport|Minneapolis/St. Paul]]
[[Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport|Minneapolis/St. Paul]]
[[Minneapolis–Saint Paul International Airport (Wold–Chamberlain Field)|Minneapolis–Saint Paul (Wold–Chamberlain Field)]]
[[Oslo Airport|Oslo]]
[[Oslo Gardermoen Airport|Oslo/Gardermoen]]
[[Oslo Gardermoen Airport|Oslo]]
[[Oslo Airport Gardermoen|Gardermoen]]
[[Oslo Airport, Gardermoen|Oslo]]
[[Oslo-Gardermoen]]
[[Oslo Airport|Oslo-Gardermoen]]
[[Oslo Gardermoen Airport|Oslo-Gardermoen]]
[[Oslo Airport, Gardermoen|Oslo–Gardermoen]]
[[Gardermoen Airport|Oslo-Gardermoen]]
[[Oslo Airport, Gardermoen|Oslo-Gardermoen]]
[[Oslo–Gardermoen]]
[[Oslo Airport, Gardermoen|Oslo , Gardermoen]]
[[Bucharest-Otopeni Airport|Bucharest]]
[[Otopeni Airport|Bucharest]]
[[Bucharest Airport|Bucharest]]
[[Bucharest Henri Coandă Airport|Bucharest]]
[[Henri Coanda International Airport|Bucharest-Otopeni]]
[[Henri Coanda International Airport|Bucharest]]
[[Henri Coanda Airport|Bucharest]]
[[Henri Coandă International Airport|Bucharest]]
[[Henri Coandă International Airport|Bucharest-Otopeni]]
[[Henri Coanda International Airport|Bucharest–Henri Coandă]]
[[Henri Coandă International Airport|Henri Coandă]]
[[Sabiha Gokcen International Airport|Istanbul-Sabiha Gokcen]]
[[Sabiha Gokcen International Airport|Istanbul-Sabiha Gökçen]]
[[Sabiha Gökçen Airport|Istanbul-Sabiha Gökçen]]
[[Istanbul Sabiha Gokcen Airport|Istanbul-Sabiha Gökçen]]
[[Sabiha Gökçen International Airport|Istanbul-Sabiha-Gokcen]]
[[Istanbul-Sabiha Gökçen]]
[[Sabiha Gökçen International Airport|Istanbul-Sabiha Gökcen]]
[[Sabiha Gökçen International Airport|Istanbul-Sabiha Gökçen]]
[[Sabiha Gökçen International Airport|Istanbul–Sabiha Gökçen]]
[[Sabiha Gökçen International Airport|Sabiha Gökçen]]
[[Montréal Trudeau Airport|Montréal-Trudeau]]
[[Trudeau International Airport|Montréal-Trudeau]]
[[Montreal Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport|Montréal-Trudeau]]
[[Montreal-Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport|Montreal-Trudeau]]
[[Montreal-Trudeau International Airport|Montreal-Trudeau]]
[[Montréal–Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport|Montreal–Trudeau]]
[[Montréal–Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport|Montreal-Trudeau]]
[[Montréal-Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport|Montréal-Trudeau]]
[[Montréal-Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport|Montréal–Trudeau]]
[[Montréal–Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport|Montréal–Trudeau]]
[[Montréal–Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport|Montréal–Pierre Elliott Trudeau]]
Bouzinac (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Referencing concern
I'm trying to elevate Calgary International Airport to Good Article status, but I'm stuck at the Airlines and Destinations table. I've upgraded other airport articles before, and neither I nor the reviewers brought up the fact that the table has no references (of course this is all in line with WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT - the airlines' timetables are the implicit references).
However I'm not feeling that this is right. How can we ask a reader to go to WestJet's timetable and manually search each of their dozens of destinations from Calgary? Another possible source, the route map, displays cities served by connections as well. And how does a reader determine that a particular route is seasonal? Searching the timetable for its availability on various dates in the summer and winter seasons?
A detailed RFC we held in February had the consensus "Keep the tables, but something should be done with regards to references and complying with WP:VERIFY"... I really think we ought to figure that out.
In place of searchable timetables, I've considered the following as sources: PDF timetables (only display a few months, so seasonality can't be determined), airline websites, press releases, news reports (which can be outdated - often only available when a route starts). These issues are leading me to what seems the simplest solution: just listing the airlines. Easily done as almost all airport websites have a directory of airlines (example). We could accompany it with something like what I've done at the Calgary airport article here.
What do we think? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 18:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- Seasonality should be cited by a source and shouldn't be inferred by viewing several timetables because it can be original research. I like the prose at the top of the section, like you linked to. You could list just the airlines, but having destinations is very informative. A table of only airlines would be dull. I think it would be OK to have an incomplete list, based only on destinations with a reliable source or begin the table with "As of August 2017" and include a link to the airport's PDF of timetables (if one is available) and any additional sources (eg. "As of August 2017, Calgary International Airport was served by the following airlines to the given destinations:[1][2][3][4][5]"). You could list some destinations as seasonal and then add a footnote stating that some additional destinations may be seasonal, eg. "The table contains some destinations that are only seasonally operated. The remaining destinations are based on [source, eg. Calgary International Airport's August 2017 timetable], which may include some seasonal destinations not marked as such. Additionally, there may be more seasonal destinations at other times of the year." AHeneen (talk) 04:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- This is exactly what I was thinking earlier. So I tried finding sources for all the airlines at Calgary airport. Air Canada and some other airlines had convenient PDF timetables, and I could find secondary sources for other airlines. However I didn't know how to include certain major airlines, including WestJet which has a large base of operations in Calgary. WestJet does not have a PDF timetable, and it flies to so many destinations from Calgary: a secondary source is unlikely to list all of them, so many such sources would be needed.
- In light of this inconsistency I thought a list of airlines would be the easiest solution that can be applied to many airports. A reliable source need only be recent and mention the airline's existence at an airport, for example. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 14:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- The airline destination table is the most useful information that airport pages have. Removing it in any form would be very regressive. The information is mostly factual although I agree that referencing should be improved, even if it is just a link to the airline's timetable page. VG31 15:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- What specific improvement should be done, though? I have tried to improve referencing but am having the issue I explained above. Also, what do you mean by "useful"? For whom? Sometimes I think more attention is devoted to these tables than any other part of airport articles, allowing the other sections to deteriorate in quality. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 15:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- I thought that the consensus reached before to replace the terminal information column with a references column was a good idea. It doesn't seem to have happened, with perhaps the occasional exception (Atlanta). I'm perfectly willing to add this references column to as many airports as I can but there has been little sign of any editors implementing what was agreed. VG31 18:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- I take issue with the ref column that links to the airlines searchable timetable, this is absolutely WP:OR. I like the airline and destination tables, and I think moving forward we continue the practice of keeping references from the beginning inline for all destinations. I too am against removing the tables, but I think WP:V can be achieved gradually by both not deleting references and citing explicit sources for existing routes. With all of this said, I would like to modify WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT in saying that references are not normally included. This has resulted in many users deleting valid references, citing this bullet. Garretka (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- I thought that the consensus reached before to replace the terminal information column with a references column was a good idea. It doesn't seem to have happened, with perhaps the occasional exception (Atlanta). I'm perfectly willing to add this references column to as many airports as I can but there has been little sign of any editors implementing what was agreed. VG31 18:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Consensus hasn't been established on that, as we see in the February RFC conclusion. But my example shows that there doesn't seem to be a great way to reference these tables, a way that covers all airlines. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 19:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I think I found a solution. CAPA Centre for Aviation has profiles on many airlines that include route maps. Using WestJet's profile, I can click on Calgary and see all destinations from this city. Only issue is that seasonal destinations won't be indicated. However, the table would have a statement "As of August 2017" for example - it would not be "current" which I believe would violate MOS:RELTIME. The only hope is that CAPA does not make this a premium service in the future. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- But again, the fact that sources are so hard to come by for this sort of information does question whether these tables truly belong... But I know I would be burned at the stake by fellow aviation enthusiasts if such a thing were to happen... ;) — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I've taken into account AHeneen and Garretka's comments (as well as my CAPA discovery) by creating an experimental table in my sandbox (scroll down a bit). Some issues I noted in this process:
- The situation with seasonal destinations is odd. As I've noted, if I find a reference stating a route is seasonal, then it is indicated as such. However, airline timetables are only effective for a certain period of time, so they list seasonal destinations without saying they are seasonal - and there might be seasonal destinations missing (because they do not operate during that period of time). Thus, you have a mix of seasonal destinations marked as such, year-round destinations, seasonal destinations not marked as such, and the absence of seasonal destinations as explained earlier.
- That was complicated so here's an example. For Air Canada Rouge, the timetable reference says Halifax serves ends 12 October. Halifax could very well be a seasonal destination, though. Meanwhile there is a list of seasonal destinations below that (Cancún, Huatulco, etc.), making it appear that Halifax is not seasonal but actually terminating.
- CAPA's route maps combine United Airlines/United Express and WestJet/WestJet Encore (this is not indicated on CAPA's website).
- Example: We have Penticton listed as a WestJet destination, when it is really a WestJet Encore destination (Encore is a separate airline under its own AOC). Now, Wikipedia can contain information that has a reliable reference but is inaccurate. Still, it doesn't feel right to add this information knowing it's technically false.
- A reliance on CAPA's route maps might not be wise as this feature could become premium in the future. Paid subscription is CAPA's business goal. Consider how FlightStats used to offer free historical flight information going back 10 years, but now this feature is premium. If we lose the CAPA source, I don't know of a backup for airlines that don't publish PDF timetables.
This might seem like nitpicking but I believe the A&D tables are flouting WP:V, a core policy. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 04:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I brought this up on the previous discussion, but might I suggest we refer to WP:NOTLAW. I think we can all (or at least a large majority) agree that the destination tables make the encyclopedia, specifically airport articles, much better. I think we also all understand that some parts of the tables can breach WP:V and WP:OR due to inconsistencies in referencing, but we also know that using booking engines, google flights, and services such as CAPA, we can fill in the holes from media/secondary sources. Per WP:NOTLAW, while these core policies are important, through discussion and consensus, these policies can be ignored for specific applications if it is determined they are inhibiting editors from improving the encyclopedia. I feel like this is a case where WP:NOTLAW would apply and we seem to have reached a consensus that these tables are an integral part of WP:Aviation. As long as we continue to use sources such as PDF Timetables and route maps to broadly source an airlines service at an airport, plus providing news releases for new/ending routes, I see no reason why we can't use WP:NOTLAW as a justification for use of booking engines to verify flights and check for schedule changes. The bullet talking about references not normally being required in destination tables is a prime example of WP:NOTLAW and I think it is a system that has worked quite well. Stinger20 (talk) 03:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- This is an interesting argument. The premise that the routes exist and can be rather quickly verified in the airline's booking engine is correct. I have two questions though:
- 1) What about seasonal destinations? The reader has to check several dates throughout the year?
- 2) Say an editor is searching the booking engine and comes upon a new route. Can they include this information in the table? This seems like a clear-cut case of WP:OR. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 16:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- But on the other hand, there's WP:Local consensus (emphasis added):
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.
AHeneen (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)- It seems like WP:NOTLAW and WP:Local consensus are directly in contrast to each other... not sure which one would be "more correct". However, it does seem like if a "broader consensus" is achieved, we could use the implicit reference guideline on WP:Airports. In regards to Sunna343's comment, I think the seasonality of routes could be verified easily enough by checking multiple dates, but I do agree that using the booking engines to find new routes is stretching too far. I will point to the RDU airport page, where, DL is adding LAS for a convention and RSW for a week in December. These seem like non-notable additions and obviously were put in place by editors coming upon new routes. This is in contrast to the SJU route, while similarly short in season, was reported on routesonline, so I think that is fine as long as it has a citation. I know last time DL expanded in BOS, it was first discovered in OAG data, and editors put the routes down with a citation needed tag. Frankly, I feel that this might be a good substitute until a press release/secondary source comes out. Most of the time sourcing issues come with new routes out on OAG data, but not yet reported by the press/airline. Stinger20 (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Stinger20: In my view WP:NOTLAW and WP:Local consensus are absolutely complementary - NOTLAW says even WP:V or other core policies can be changed if consensus is gained to do so - Local Consensus says you can't ignore such broad consensus for specific areas of the project - the broad consensus must be followed. To put it another way to remove the requirement of verfiability which is what you are suggesting the requirement will need to be removed for the whole of Wikipedia - which I suspect is not going to happen. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- I think in any case we should hold another RFC as recommended in the last one, in order to gain some outside input on whether this would be acceptable. This referencing issue appears to be unique to airport articles. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 00:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- It seems like WP:NOTLAW and WP:Local consensus are directly in contrast to each other... not sure which one would be "more correct". However, it does seem like if a "broader consensus" is achieved, we could use the implicit reference guideline on WP:Airports. In regards to Sunna343's comment, I think the seasonality of routes could be verified easily enough by checking multiple dates, but I do agree that using the booking engines to find new routes is stretching too far. I will point to the RDU airport page, where, DL is adding LAS for a convention and RSW for a week in December. These seem like non-notable additions and obviously were put in place by editors coming upon new routes. This is in contrast to the SJU route, while similarly short in season, was reported on routesonline, so I think that is fine as long as it has a citation. I know last time DL expanded in BOS, it was first discovered in OAG data, and editors put the routes down with a citation needed tag. Frankly, I feel that this might be a good substitute until a press release/secondary source comes out. Most of the time sourcing issues come with new routes out on OAG data, but not yet reported by the press/airline. Stinger20 (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I'd just like to mention as well that it should be compulsory for charter and cargo routes to have references as unlike scheduled routes these can be very difficult to verify. I've done this for Irish airport pages as I know all the travel agents that charter aircraft but I cannot do it for other countries as I have no idea where to look. VG31 17:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- I agree, and we can see that WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT is already very cautious about cargo routes. This guideline says "should" but this should probably be changed to "must". — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 00:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- Possible RFC question
Let's think about how the RFC should be structured. The question could be: "How should the Airlines and destinations tables of airport articles be referenced?"
- Option A: The current situation per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT - the airlines' timetables are the implicit references.
- Option B: Explicit references must be provided. However, timetables that require manual searching (e.g. this one) are not permitted as references.
- Option C: Explicit references must be provided. Timetables that require manual searching are permitted. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 11:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- Sunnya343 looks like three solid choices for an RfC to me. Garretka (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- I would say switch B and C for sake of clarity, so that each option gets more restrictive. In addition, we probably should make clear that with option A, references are implicit, but that explicit references will still be required for new/resuming/ending/frequently challenged routes. Stinger20 (talk) 03:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- Good points. Revised:
- Option A: The current situation per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT - the airlines' timetables are the implicit references. However, new/resuming/ending/frequently challenged routes require an explicit reference.
- Option B: Explicit references must be provided in all cases. Timetables that require manual searching are permitted as references.
- Option C: Explicit references must be provided in all cases. However, timetables that require manual searching (e.g. this one) are not permitted. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 10:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
One question: for Option A should we add the following: "Explicit references may be removed once a new/resuming route begins." — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 10:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- Sunnya343 I would actually suggest the opposite. Explicit references shall not be removed unless the route is ending. Inline refs do absolutely no harm to the table. Garretka (talk) 11:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- My only caution with this is that these sources do not necessarily cite that the route is still operating. Keeping them indefinitely seems redundant if Option A is saying the sources are implicit, especially since such sources only prove the start/end date, but do not prove that the route is still operating. Stinger20 (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- That's true, and imagine if we had references for each of Emirates' destinations from Dubai, for example. Since this has been a point of contention that led to the February RFC in the first place, I think we should add the statement: "(It is not yet determined whether explicit references should be deleted once a route begins.)" Further discussion could take place if/when consensus is clear. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 18:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- My only caution with this is that these sources do not necessarily cite that the route is still operating. Keeping them indefinitely seems redundant if Option A is saying the sources are implicit, especially since such sources only prove the start/end date, but do not prove that the route is still operating. Stinger20 (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Albenga Airport
Can someone take a look at Albenga Airport? The last few edits have gone back and forth over the proper name of the airport and I can't check the refs myself. Thanks Sario528 (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- The name discussion seems to have found its own cool-down, good! Still I took a look, and questioned some phrases that sounded all-too-commercial. Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
RfC about Reinstating column with terminal information
Consensus has been reached that the column of terminal information should not be reinstated, per WP:NOTRAVEL. (non-admin closure) --Kostas20142 (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the column of terminal information be reinstated?
A/ Yes, due to recurring visitors who are looking at this information, not for travel purposes. Those visitors are complaining about the removal.
B/ No, as per WP:NOTRAVEL as previous consensus stated.
Wykx (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- A) Support reinclusion. Wykx (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- A) Support reinclusion. It was entirely counter-productive to remove the terminal information in the first place. It has much encyclopedic value which is not travel related. VG31 14:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- B) No support. This is not a travel guide, and consensus regarding this has been reached too
earlyrecently to change this again.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC) - Oppose There's no need to re-debate this so soon after the issue was settled. In most cases, airlines only use one terminal at an airport. The airlines using a particular terminal can be listed at the end of the section/paragraph about individual terminals. AHeneen (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- B) per comments above Garretka (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- B) This time I agree with Garret. LordAtlas (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose It is disingenuous to portray the previous discussion as just WP:NOTRAVEL although it most certainly is. Wikipedia's core policies suggest most strongly that this information in comprehesive tabular form is very very questionable - the fact that almost none of the deleted terminal information was referenced leads to the suspicion that this information is mostly unreferencable in any comprehensive manner. Also opposition to the previous change has been far from constant or consistent - the opposition I have seen has been from editor fanboys not readers of the encyclopaedia and with no argument about why this information needs to be tabular in the existing destination tables. Andrewgprout (talk) 01:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- A) The information provides encyclopedic value in my opinion - it gives context to airport configurations, airline alliance relations, destination relations, etc. Train stations commonly include platform information (eg. Willowbrook/Rosa Parks station, Central railway station, Sydney, Waterfront station (Vancouver)) which is the railway equivelent of terminals and seemingly doesn't violate NOTTRAVEL. I don't see how listing every airport served by every carrier in a table doesn't also violate NOTTRAVEL if terminal info does as well? -- Whats new?(talk) 03:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- B) I don't understand why it is challenged again as terminal info is obviously pure travel info ; furthermore, this topic has been discussed months before.Bouzinac (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- B) For the same reasons it was removed in the first place. Stinger20 (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- A) Support reinclusion. For the simple reason that listing the airlines/destinations in the first place seems like a travel guide, why are the terminals any diffrent? KDTW Flyer (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: The reason why airlines amd destinations are included is to show the scope and range of services from a particular airport, and these dont actually have to be up to date, just reliably referenced. The terminal used is not relevant to showing the range of services provided. MilborneOne (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- A) Support reinclusion. This is factual information (just as the destinations info is) and contributes to the encyclopedic nature of the articles. cmercier (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- B) WP:NOTAGAIN. It's been three months since the last RFC. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 19:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with the earlier comment in this section by AHeneen. "In most cases, airlines only use one terminal at an airport. The airlines using a particular terminal can be listed at the end of the section/paragraph about individual terminals." Peter K Burian (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose If only to give this a rest.....you just went through an RFC on this with a decisive result. North8000 (talk) 07:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- B--Petebutt (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- B - Per WP:NOTRAVEL and WP:NOTAGAIN. (invited randomly by a bot) Jojalozzo (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- B) Since some of the concourse/terminal information can't be referenced anyway, like at MDT. In some cases it's also repeating information found elsewhere in the article. JamesRenard (talk) 12:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Hi, can someone write somewhere in the WP:pages (AIRPORTS or whatever) clearly that no more terminal informations are permitted, as there is still people trying to put them ? It'd be appreciated Bouzinac (talk) 11:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- My apologies, it is clearly stated there WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT Bouzinac (talk) 11:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hi. Before I begin this is my first post and apologies in advance if I’ve done something wrong regarding formatting etc… I have been coming to Wikipedia for many years to source what airlines use what terminals and/or concourses as it assists me with assigning those airlines in Microsoft Flight Simulator and now Lockheed Martin’s Prepar3d. I have yet to find an alternative website where all that information is in one place, so when I saw that the airline terminal information was removed, I was disappointed. I only found out the reason a couple of days ago by discovering this talk page. Reading through the arguments for and against, I can now understand the reasons for removing it. If I had known about it sooner, I would have put my case forward. But the decision has been made, and I’m not here to change that. I would like to offer an alternative. Could that same information in the original tabular format be transferred across to the WikiVoyages site instead? It’s just a thought. Thank you for your time. BlueMagician (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- My apologies, it is clearly stated there WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT Bouzinac (talk) 11:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I move that terminal information should be almost required in airport articles, particularly if there is more than one terminal and one terminal is mostly used by one airline or airline alliance. It doesn't have to be in a table but in the text. Vanguard10 (talk) 04:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Experimental A&D table format
I have designed a new format for the "Airlines and destinations" tables that reconciles Wikipedia policies as discussed in the recent RfC. It is located here on the Calgary International Airport article. I have more explanation here on the article's talk page. Please provide your thoughts either here or there. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 16:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- What a pity a simple table cannot be transverse to many wikipedia language. The same A&D table with a wikidata module would be the same whichever language. I tried a (failed) attempt at Ajaccio-Napoléon-Bonaparte and one would update one time an A&D and this update would be visible to any wikilanguage. --Bouzinac (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Why is it necessary for the reference column to be seperate? Wouldn't it be simpler and fit Wikipedia expectations if an appropriate reference covers the whole entry to put it after the airline name in column one. While WP:V says everything has to be verifiable it does not say everything must have an explicit reference - all of Wikipedia uses this principle. By enforcing a general explicit reference you risk getting very bad and general references that do not really support the details given. The existence of these general references do not remove the need to seperately explicitly reference any detail that is questioned or questionable. Andrewgprout (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Aesthetic reasons really, especially if there is more than one reference. However I'm not really understanding your other point. In the case of the Calgary airport article, I carefully read through each reference and copied over the destination list. Are you saying editors could add "general" references that do not actually support the entire list of destinations? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 23:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with Andrew, I don't see why a references column in necessary -- Whats new?(talk) 23:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Aesthetic reasons really, especially if there is more than one reference. However I'm not really understanding your other point. In the case of the Calgary airport article, I carefully read through each reference and copied over the destination list. Are you saying editors could add "general" references that do not actually support the entire list of destinations? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 23:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Why is it necessary for the reference column to be seperate? Wouldn't it be simpler and fit Wikipedia expectations if an appropriate reference covers the whole entry to put it after the airline name in column one. While WP:V says everything has to be verifiable it does not say everything must have an explicit reference - all of Wikipedia uses this principle. By enforcing a general explicit reference you risk getting very bad and general references that do not really support the details given. The existence of these general references do not remove the need to seperately explicitly reference any detail that is questioned or questionable. Andrewgprout (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Anyways, my WP:BOLD edit has been reverted. This is how it looked previously. I'm waiting for a decision on the RfC above before I take additional steps. Still, I encourage editors to consider and debate the format I have proposed. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 12:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Delta hub at AMS and CDG?
This keeps getting added to the infobox for the hub parameter but it has stopped for right now. Can someone watch these pages or can we get a consensus whether or not these are to,be considered hubs or not? Thanks! 97.85.118.142 (talk) 05:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- Will do. Something else to watch out for... there's an IP editor who is constantly adding Southwest Airlines to lots of airport articles, claiming that it is a focus city for the airline... 172.58.43.250 (talk) 14:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
The issue of whether or not Bengaluru should be added to the A&D table of the SFO airport article has come up again. I guess the airline recently changed the Delhi → Bengaluru sector to the same Boeing 777-200(LR) aircraft that the San Francisco → Delhi flies on. I also know that we do not list through-hub destinations, and since Delhi and Bengaluru are both Air India hubs, it wouldn't make sense to add Bengaluru as a destination to/from SFO. Any thoughts here? Thanks, all. 172.58.43.250 (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Accidents
Currently a crash is mentioned only if it occurred close to the airport. This is too restrictive. Sometimes there are significant sentimental, news, or historical links if a crashed flight originated at an airport. I propose to change the article outline such as brief mention may be made for flights that was scheduled to originate or arrive at the airport. Such mention should be briefer that accidents that happened in the proximity of the airport and should have at least one link or reference so further information can be found by the reader but not at the expense of a detailed description in the airport article. Vanguard10 (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- Disagree mostly, the scope of an airport article is about the airport, an incident with nothing to do with that airport other than it was part of the aircraft's route is rarely of enough significance for mention within the airport article. Andrewgprout (talk) 07:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- The Airport accident and incident articles should only include those happenings that occur at the airport or on approach or just after takeoff IMHO....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- This has been discussed before. I agree with the inclusion only if the crash took place in the airport (or in the vicinities at most).--Jetstreamer Talk 12:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
The reason I mentioned the proposal was this sentence in the Newark Liberty International Airport article, which I believe is very appropriate.
On September 11, 2001, Newark International Airport was the starting point of United Airlines Flight 93, a Boeing 757 that was hijacked as a part of the September 11 attacks the flight was crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
In the Montreal Mirabel Airport, there is mention of this sorry bombing.
June 23, 1985: Air India Flight 182, a Boeing 747-200B en route from Montréal-Mirabel to London Heathrow Airport was blown up by a terrorist bomb off the coast of Ireland, killing all 307 passengers and 22 crew.
By the current rule, these two sentences should be eliminated. Not sensible, I think.
This sentence is in the Alaska Airlines Flight 261 article but, according to the rules, it cannot appear on the Seattle Tacoma International Airport article or, better yet, even a one sentence mention of the crash in the accident section of the airport article.
hat the western portion of Washington State "had never before experienced such a loss from a plane crash."[22] Many residents of the City of Seattle, Washington had been deeply affected by the disaster.
Vanguard10 (talk) 04:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes the above should probably be deleted - They are covered elsewhere in Wikipedia and it is questionable how significant such details are to the airport article itself.
- I agree that as a general rule an aircraft incident should only be mentioned on an airport page if the incident occurred at or near the airport. However, I think this functions as a summary of Wikipedia guidelines regarding topical relevance, and I comment here that this shouldn't be mistaken for a strict rule. The reason I mention this is the mention of bombings or hijackings, which could be topically relevant to a particular airport. Security at Newark International Airport was a notable subtopic of the 9/11 investigation (since security was managed locally by each airport at the time) and contributed to the formation of the Transportation Security Administration. Such a mention would require a description of the relationship to the airport (which should double as justification for deviating from the general rule). Shelbystripes (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)