Talk:Trapani–Birgi Airport

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Trapani–Birgi Airport article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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

Article policies

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

Aviation: Airports

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the airport project.

Sicily Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sicily, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sicily on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SicilyWikipedia:WikiProject SicilyTemplate:WikiProject SicilySicily articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Encyclopedic interest?[edit]

Sorry what is the encyclopedic interest of having an article on this airport in Wikipedia? Looks like advertising, or a company flyer. AdvertChaser (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Short account about the two no official websites: www.trapaniairport.it - www.aeroportotrapani.com[edit]

Short account about the two no official websites:

www.trapaniairport.it www.aeroportotrapani.com

At the end of June, the company, of which I take part, have published the website www.trapaniairport.it (we bought the domain 1 year ago). The goal of this website is to improve and to take a deeper look into the information service offered by the official website of the airport. Our website offers many information which may not be easy found elsewhere. For this, we have used the Web 2.0, for example google maps, flicker photos, video from Youtube. Nobody has sponsored this project and on our website there is not packagings (except Adwords). Since a little while, we have published the first blog of an italian airport, through which in cooperation with Ryanair, we have begun to advertise the new flights in transit to Trapani.

www.aeroportotrapani.com: This website was registered and published on line just a month later we published our website. The one who published the website, asserted publically that he “drew” on our website. It would be enough to have a quick look at this website, to be aware of the so evident “inspirations” (the timetable, the map etc..). In addition, on this website there are many packagings too.

In conclusion, on the grounds of my considerations, I would ask you if it would be possible to show the website www.trapaniairport.it as “Unofficial site” rather than as “Another unofficial site”, as it shows currently, since it seems to be, im my opinion, very humiliating for our project.

However, I will accept your own choice, considering that it will be the most correct choice for both websites.

Best regards, Mr. Paolo Salone

--82.89.187.167 14:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the external links: now both of them are shown simply as "unofficial". About the inclusion issue, we have a style guideline at WP:EL which generically covers the external links issue. Then, the registration period is not considered as a valid reason to include an external link at another's place. Both sites describe the Trapani Airport facilities and flights, they are very similar, but actually not the same. So Right now I have no chance but to include either both sites or none, unless you can build a consensus in support of your proposal is built. Unfortunately two users ain't enough to establish consensus, as they are way too less. These are the rules, I cannot do anything more than what I'm doing. --Angelo 16:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Good choice giosweb 23:22, 21 set 2007 (CEST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.171.200 (talk)