Jump to content

Talk:Logan International Airport: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Dfiner (talk | contribs)
Dfiner (talk | contribs)
Line 52: Line 52:


== Noting which airlines have suspended service ==
== Noting which airlines have suspended service ==
After waiting over a year to see if someone else was going to do it, I have noted those airline services that have not restarted following the withdrawal of flights in 2020 due to the COVID pandemic. This has been repeatedly reversed, despite citing reliable sources in each case, and being completely in keeping the standard practice for articles on major airports around the world—including this page itself, as another editor input the ITA information for their future flights to Rome using the exact same format! I highly doubt that there could be a constructive suggestion as to why the Logan page would not follow this consistent convention, but if so I'd be very interested to hear that opinion. Otherwise there has to be a valid basis for undoing these citations other than the classic, tautological catch-all fiat "it's not encyclopedic" when it's simply the mundane practice of Airport articles on Wikipedia and is not disallowed or controversial at all of those dozens of articles.
After waiting over a year to see if someone else was going to do it, I have noted those airline services that have not restarted following the withdrawal of flights in 2020 due to the COVID pandemic. This has been repeatedly reversed, despite citing reliable sources in each case, and being completely in keeping the standard practice for articles on major airports around the world—including at other entries in the same Airlines and Destinations section of the article itself, as there is a surfeit of other such notations made by other editors at Delta, JetBlue, etc, and recently another contributor input the ITA information for their future flights to Rome using the exact same format! I highly doubt that there could be a constructive suggestion as to why the Logan page would not follow this consistent convention, but if so I'd be very interested to hear that opinion. Otherwise there has to be a valid basis for undoing these citations other than the classic, tautological catch-all fiat "it's not encyclopedic" when it's simply the mundane practice of Airport articles on Wikipedia and is not disallowed or controversial at all of those dozens of articles.


I've long been aware that there has been a high degree of territory-marking and turf claiming on the Logan Airport article, so I limit my contributions here, but at some point this is getting out of hand when legitimate, factual edits which enhance the relevant information on the page, in line with what is done at virtually all other airport pages, is disallowed by another editor. It smacks of subjectivity. Unless that editor is going to go across Wikipedia and delete all the remarks noting '(suspended)' '(begins X date)' or '(resumes X date)' etc etc across hundreds of Airport articles, than this nothing more than guarding a pet article and applying personal preferences which only results in a less accurate article. To remove this information would suggest to the reader, for instance, that Cabo Verde Airlines has continued to connect Logan to Praia, just as BA is flying daily to London or JAL to Tokyo, when it is verifiable that Cabo Verde Airlines has not flown at all in over a year and is not serving Boston. How is that defensible? —[[User:Dfiner|Dfiner]] ([[User talk:Dfiner|talk]]) 15:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
I've long been aware that there has been a high degree of territory-marking and turf claiming on the Logan Airport article, so I limit my contributions here, but at some point this is getting out of hand when legitimate, factual edits which enhance the relevant information on the page, in line with what is done at virtually all other airport pages, is disallowed by another editor. It smacks of subjectivity. Unless that editor is going to go across Wikipedia and delete all the remarks noting '(suspended)' '(begins X date)' or '(resumes X date)' etc etc across hundreds of Airport articles, than this nothing more than guarding a pet article and applying personal preferences which only results in a less accurate article. To remove this information would suggest to the reader, for instance, that Cabo Verde Airlines has continued to connect Logan to Praia, just as BA is flying daily to London or JAL to Tokyo, when it is verifiable that Cabo Verde Airlines has not flown at all in over a year and is not serving Boston. How is that defensible? —[[User:Dfiner|Dfiner]] ([[User talk:Dfiner|talk]]) 15:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:35, 24 October 2021

Delta Cancun and Charleston service not seasonal but will be year round

Hello,

 Delta Mainline service to Cancun and DCI service to Charleston will be year round (albeit not daily for Cancun)not seasonal.

Question regarding American Airlines in Boston

So I noticed American Airlines is starting to have quite a presence in Boston. American is about to have 25 non stop destinations in May. Many of which are to non hub destinations such as Austin, London-Heathrow, Cancun, Grand Cauman, Montego Bay, Nassau, Providenciales, Punta Cana, Harrisburg, Indianapolis, Raleigh/Durham, Rochester, Syracuse, Key West and Wilmington. By definition of focus cities for airlines is an airline where an airline is not a hub but has a quite a bit of non stop destinations that serve non hub cities for that airline. Take Raleigh/Durham for DELTA Airlines for example. Correct me if I am wrong. So my question is would American Airlines be considered a focus city in Boston since American his going to have 25 nonstop destinations? If American Airlines would not fall under the category of focus city for Boston may I please ask why? I would like to know. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fantech0104 (talkcontribs) 00:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • No because their site doesn't claim Boston to be anything significant. It is just labeled as just another common city. Routes If not on there you'll need something in the stock report or something else like that to prove it is an important "Hub" or "Focus" city. Right now the evidence shows that AA is just another regular carrier at Logan. CaribDigita (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks! - Fantech0104

Clean-up of the Ground transport section

Looking through the Ground Transport section, it appears some the information is poorly framed and includes non-relevent information (ie Uber and Lyft mass messaging it user base to protest massport changes). Ideally I think the intention of the original submitter was to include all the options but got lost in writing all the details. 68.229.80.75 (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noting which airlines have suspended service

After waiting over a year to see if someone else was going to do it, I have noted those airline services that have not restarted following the withdrawal of flights in 2020 due to the COVID pandemic. This has been repeatedly reversed, despite citing reliable sources in each case, and being completely in keeping the standard practice for articles on major airports around the world—including at other entries in the same Airlines and Destinations section of the article itself, as there is a surfeit of other such notations made by other editors at Delta, JetBlue, etc, and recently another contributor input the ITA information for their future flights to Rome using the exact same format! I highly doubt that there could be a constructive suggestion as to why the Logan page would not follow this consistent convention, but if so I'd be very interested to hear that opinion. Otherwise there has to be a valid basis for undoing these citations other than the classic, tautological catch-all fiat "it's not encyclopedic" when it's simply the mundane practice of Airport articles on Wikipedia and is not disallowed or controversial at all of those dozens of articles.

I've long been aware that there has been a high degree of territory-marking and turf claiming on the Logan Airport article, so I limit my contributions here, but at some point this is getting out of hand when legitimate, factual edits which enhance the relevant information on the page, in line with what is done at virtually all other airport pages, is disallowed by another editor. It smacks of subjectivity. Unless that editor is going to go across Wikipedia and delete all the remarks noting '(suspended)' '(begins X date)' or '(resumes X date)' etc etc across hundreds of Airport articles, than this nothing more than guarding a pet article and applying personal preferences which only results in a less accurate article. To remove this information would suggest to the reader, for instance, that Cabo Verde Airlines has continued to connect Logan to Praia, just as BA is flying daily to London or JAL to Tokyo, when it is verifiable that Cabo Verde Airlines has not flown at all in over a year and is not serving Boston. How is that defensible? —Dfiner (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]