Talk:London Heathrow Airport

Main article: London Heathrow Terminal 3

does anyone know why and how the main article on terminal 3 has gone and why? sailor iain (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Archives

• /archive1
• /archive2

Pronunciation

Most non-British people pronounce Heathrow with the stress on the first syllable. However, I have heard several Britons pronounce the word with the stress on the last syllable. I have even been told by a person who lives in London that that is how they distinguish between foreigners and the natives.

Which pronunciation is more common in Britain?--Oz1cz (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I would say that it tends to be either fairly even, or slightly stressed on the second syllable. Lynbarn (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Dubious

It's dubious that BAA holds a monopoly position for the London area; LTN/LCY/LGW/SEN all compete. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Your are probably right if you consider that BAA have now sold Gatwick and now only hold Heathrow and Stansted, London City is far smaller and mainly european business flights, Luton is still mainly a charter base with a few scheduled flights and Southend apart from not really being anywhere near London has no significant services. So I would agree that rather a monopoly it would be better the describe it as holding a commanding position with the number of movements at Heathrow and Stansted. MilborneOne (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Format of list of events

• I have put the list of events back into dated list format, as like that it is easier to find any one event and its date, regardless of "best essay style" learned at school. During this I found events described out of time order, and rounded up stray event descriptions from elsewhere in the article. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Text-merging with page Great West Aerodrome

• I have text-merged page Great West Aerodrome into here, as the Great West Aerodrome became the modern airport during and shortly after WWII. I have text-merged in airfield-related matter from Heathrow (hamlet). Page Great West Aerodrome now redirects here, but page Heathrow (hamlet) is still separate. This cleared up a quantity of content forking. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
• I strongly disagree with the removal of Great West Aerodrome as a standalone article. The 1930 airfield was notable and viable as the subject of a separate article. It did not become Heathrow Airport - it was among the many farms, hamlets, houses and roads compulsorily seized and demolished before the civil airport was built in 1946. I propose that the Great West Aerodrome article should be restored. PeterWD (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• Or it could be said that the start of Heathrow Airport was the Great West Aerodrome greatly enlarged. Apart from grassland, about the only thing demolishable of the Aerodrome was the old Fairey hangar, which survived until 1964. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have restored the Great West Aerodrom article, you cant just copy out text and redirect the article, suggest this needs discussion and consensus, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

History section

• I have tagged the history section as needing a cleanup, it is badly presented and really needs changing into prose, perhaps a seperate History of London Heathrow Airport is called for. MilborneOne (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• OK found the problem the recent edits have added unattributed copyright text from another article and messed up the format after the article was copy edited. If the article had been left it would have lost its B-class rating back to C - not something we want to encourage. If you have suggestions to improve the article then please discuss, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• The conversion to essay format made the article about 11000 bytes shorter and lost much information. To me, putting it in list format makes it easier to look for one bit of information, or what happened at any one time, without having to wade through a mass of elegant variation and "varying the expression", and fiddly bits of arithmetic when something is e.g. said to be "three years later" to avoid putting another date number in. I stated in comments where I merged text in from, e.g. at my first 09:19, 19 June 2011 edit. As regards copyright, when I merged text in, I merged in with it any contained references. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• My experience of a time line being converted into "prose" is that the timeline list is "chopped and baled" into even-sized paragraphs with several events described in each, with dates randomly at the start or middle or end of the text describing the event, or the exact date replaced by "n years later", and events described out of time order. Down the years and even before computers came in I have waded through too much "best essay style" for one bit of information when a list would have been clearer, and the eternal confusing and ambiguity-causing nuisances "elegant variation" and "varying the expression" leaving me each time wondering whether the different word has a different meaning. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Are your really saying this is a quality change to the article:

• 2010: Terminal 5's second satellite building was completed.
• 12 May 2010: New 3rd runway & 6th terminal cancelled by the Cameron government.
• Summer 2010: The old Terminal 2 was demolished.
• October 2010: The second phase of building Terminal 2B started.
• 20 May 2011:: Terminal 5B opened unofficially.
• June 2011: Terminal 5C opened.
• 1 June 2011:: Terminal 5B opened officially.

I would be interested why you think section like this is an improvement, the copyright problem was about attribution and I would expect a Template:Copied to have been used. That said I am happy to help improve the article and have suggested that a History of London Heathrow Airport would be a better vehicle but at the moment it would be really be a list of events rather than an article but I am sure with a bit of work could be a good article. MilborneOne (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• This seems to be leading towards the old dispute "trivial or not?": often one man's trivia or cruft is another man's important relevant matter. As an example of attribution, see the edit comment of my first 09:19, 19 June 2011 edit to page London Heathrow Airport. Whether to extract the history timeline into page History of London Heathrow Airport is another matter, and may be useful, if the stub-and-link pointing to it does not expand into major WP:content forking. The word "good" has various meanings: literary effect is not the same as making it easy for a reader to look for what happened at a particular date. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• The dated events listed just above were extracted from the sections about each terminal. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• It should be noted that many Wikipedia readers read an article not for an interesting general read like a book, but looking for specific single bits of information and what happened when, and to them a timeline is often the most useful format. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree this section really needs to be changed back to prose. Since the history section has now started to take over the article, a new article should probably be started, as MilborneOne suggested, with this extra information. Also, Anthony, the Manual of Style (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (embedded lists)) clearly encourages prose instead of lists where possible. Mlm42 (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I converted the History section to prose yesterday but today it is back as it was in summary-style bullet points. I can't for the life of me see how this happened, but the way it looks now is a mess, and the user who converted it should change it back. The article needs an overhaul and I agree with the separate history article but I wouldn't recommend the user who converted this article should do it. Colourlines (talk) 13:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Airlines/destinations section: People keep changing it!

Is it possible to lock the airlines/destinations section? People keep coming on and adding totally imaginary routes, and sometimes even imaginary airlines! Sometimes this vandalism can be quite severe. I know this is a problem that affects other airport pages too. Locking this frequently edited section would then allow it to be edited by an admin once a reference was provided. Alternatively, could editing the article be blocked to unregistered users? (1ihatehalifax (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC))

Those routes either the airline does not fly to or they require plane changes at hubs. Also, I am seeing someone keep removing Boston and Miami from Delta as they do fly there with their own aircraft. Also, anyone wishing to edit this section must have sources to back it up. Snoozlepet (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

"Busiest international routes" table lists San Francisco twice

The table of busiest routes from/to Heathrow lists San Francisco in 13th place with 1,031,000 passengers and in 26th place with 860,617 passengers. One of those has to be wrong. San Francisco also doesn't have two airports, so that's not it either (there are two other airports near SF, Oakland and San Jose, but those don't have direct service from Heathrow). --Catrope (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Iberia terminal move

Two matters about the terminal move of Iberia: i] The terminal move is supposed to be situated on the 'terminal rearrangements' section, as it is, but on other wikipedia pages it is also situated on the airlines list, should the norm be followed or since Heathrow is one of the few airports with that section should it only be in that section. ii] There has been some debate on whether the Iberia flight to Madrid will remain a codeshare or will actually be a BA Flight operated by Iberia (like the situation with Lufthansa and BMI). The flight numbers (BA5--) suggest that it is now a BA flight operated by Iberia, as many reports suggest that it will be. (e.g. [1]. In that case, it should be that the Iberia flight is shown as ending and a 'British Airways operated by Iberia' row be inserted.

I wouldn't make this edit if someone were to immediately undo it, which is why I've put it on the talk page.

--MJLRGS (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw no reason not to make this change, so went ahead with it. The Business Traveller article is a reliable source and is backed up with BA's press release. As for whether the flights will be "Iberia" or "BA operated by Iberia": I have no idea, but the Iberia flight numbers for the Iberia-operated flights are unchanged, so from that point of view it just seems that they're moving terminal. I also updated the T5 article. --RFBailey (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Flymarco?

Flymarco? Anyone have any information? Can't even find an airline by that name searching it into Google, let alone Wikipedia!--MJLRGS (talk) 13:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)