Talk:London City Airport

Fair use rationale for Image:Lca22.jpg

Image:Lca22.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The previous logo, referred to above, was deleted. I have added a new logo, and the the image description page gives correct reference to fair use rationale. SempreVolando (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop London City Flights

Someone from London City Airport is trying to stop me mentioning anything about residents protests to the London City Airport. All my changes have been reverted!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.218.175 (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I know there are protests about this - but you have to describe them in encyclopaedic terms; and reference what you say to coverage in the press. The protest should not be described in your words, but in the words used in the press.

The best way to cover these things tends to be: a) introduce the controversy - what are they planning (increased flights, change of flight paths, etc); b) introduce the case for - say, the chief exec of the airport's statements to the press; and c) introduce some of the protesters' points - say through their statements to the press, or possibly a quote from their website. The point here is to provide a balanced approach to the issues - let the reader make their own mind up and follow up further information, if they're interested.

This article should neither be a puff piece for the airport, nor a forum for the protests, but should be an encyclopaedic article that takes note of the issues in a neutral point of view. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict - KBT has covered some of this too) Actually, an admin removed your coments because they violated Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View and Reliable sources policies. Also, most airpots get these kinds of protests, so on its own, this is not really notable per the Notability policy. - BillCJ (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it represents a major expansion in traffic and there are significant changes to flight paths around the airport. The changes mean that the airport will have a significantly increased noise footprint - throughout east and south-east London. The final NATs report is N SEL London City final(1).pdf here. The NPOV and reliability issues are covered by referencing any material to national (pref) and local press. As to notability, probably merits at least a para under 'future plans'; and a link to protesters site. But, as previously said, it does need to be NPOV. Kbthompson (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Correction the link is now [1] - if that's not it look at the index [2] Kbthompson (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Planning controversy

There's been a bit to-and-fro recently regarding a group - "Fight the Flights" - which oppose an increase in ATMs at LCY. I reworked the section so it was sourced (using WP:RS), neutral, more inline with accepted style etc. This was then reverted back to the more opinionated version. Comments? I suspect there might be a conflict of interest. Thanks/wangi (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

1. How can you call it "CONTROVERSY"?. "Fight the Flights" is a CAMPAIGN group not a CONTROVERSY!?

2. They have a BLOG as their web site; hence the link to a BLOG rather then a web site.

3. You have deleted the link to LCACC. It is mentioned on London City Airport's own web site: About LCACC

4. Wangi - you deleted the link to Planning Officer's report!

5. Wangi - you have to allow to appreciate by quoting the BBC, add very little value. And quoting the Planning Officer's report is far more accurate (see item 4). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.92.180 (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Less haste please. The attempt by the airport operators to extend the number of ATMs is controversial as demonstrated by media interest and the campaign group. Therefore it is a controversy. There is no need to link to the campaign group website, regardless of where it is hosted. Remarks from the group need to be sourced from a reliable source -- and typically that means the group's own site is a bad idea. A LCACC link already existed (and still does) in the external links section before you added another duplicate copy. Please work through your concerns on this talk page, and take some time to read through some introductory Wikipedia material; see: WP:FIVE for some pointers. Thanks/wangi (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Not provide a link to the campaign group shows bias. Since the campaign group is "specific" to this airport.

2. You have to appreciate that the airport has a PR machine. And their job is to make sure the Aiport's press release ends up in in the media. For instance, the new Transatlantic service is just an example. It was a way of advertising a new service to the US. Yet if you look at the campaign web site, you will see that the A318, has not even been approved (there was a test flight). So people are QUOTING BBC, Bloomberg without fully checking the facts!

3. Much of the Wiki is a cut

4. The campaign web site 'pick' holes in all of London City Airport's claims etc... yet I am unable to quote that until it appears in on the BBC, Blommberg!?.

5. The same goes for the Airport's planning application. For instance, they claim they will create 100 of jobs if they are allowed to expand services, but they fail to point out that because of their expansion 2000, because airport will have a negative impact on noise and cost several thousand jobs. Yet, it seems this first hand bit of research by the campaign group cannot be used until it becomes 'second' hand and comes from other media sources, which usually water down the information.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.92.180 (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This article does not automatically link to any and every website related to the airport - we need to consider notability and accuracy along with other concerns. This is an encyclopaedia, and as such needs to be based on neutral reliable sources. (please sign your posts - see WP:SIG) Thanks/wangi (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Just some points on the discussion:

1. The campaign group is mentioned in the article, although it appears not to meet the requirements of notability. The only non-blog references on the net are references to Anne-Marie Griffin as part of the group. Doesnt actually mention the group itself. Blogs are not a reliable source of information so we cant link to it or use it as a reference, refer WP:EL.

2. Again you are referring to information on blogs which do not meet the requirements of reliable source. Also note that it doesnt have to be true just a reliable source. It is not wikipedia's role to come to conclusions that is original research.

3. Dont undertand statement

4. Again not a reliable source, we presume good faith but anybody can start a blog and say anything they want - hence not reliable.

5. Again we can mention anything that comes from a reliable source we cant say what it doesnt say as that is original research WP:OR.

So please note that this is not a reflection on any group but wikipedia must keep a neutral point of view. Also note that if you add information about the campaign and you are involved in that campaign it is considered a conflict of interest and is not normally allowed. Please as Wangi suggested refer to WP:FIVE. MilborneOne (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Last night I noticed that the application to increase ATMs was discussed twice in the article, so merged both sections together to avoid this duplication. This was subsequently reverted by the 78.151.*.* IP editor -- "Undid revision 232190546 by Wangi (talk) - merging makes topic messy". I reverted this change - if it is in some way untidy then please tidy it up, do not revert back to an article with duplicated content. Thanks/wangi (talk) 08:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

wangi: EVERY AIRPORT HAS TO PRODUCE "MASTER PLAN" AS PER WHITE PAPER. SO BY MERGING "MASTER PLAN" WITH "FIGHT THE FLIGHTS" CAMPAIGN GROUP INTO THE ONE GROUP IS TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE. THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT SUBJECT MATTERS. you will note that having a seperate heading for the campaign group is in line with other Wiki topics (see heathrow, stanstead....) all have seperate sections. IF PEOPLE WANT TO MAKE THE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.161.83 (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Please revert your edit. You are placing undue weight and notability on the campaign group, which would also seem to be a conflict of interest. Thanks/wangi (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the campaign group bit and added a reference at the end of the Master Plan and just mentioned the group only objects to excessive noise which is what the BBC reference relates to. MilborneOne (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Frustrated IP user

IP user has left the following on my talk page which despite the personal attack is more appropriate here, I am afraid he/she has not listened to what has been said on this page and does not understand that wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia not a campaign blog or soap box. Can some else try and explain this to him/her. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Let corruption succeed!

What you have done to the London City Airport is injustice. In fact it is a cut & paste of the london city airport web site. (might as well be written by their PR company).

Residents suffer with the Noise and it is making people's life a misery. AND YOU HAVE DELETED THE SECTION ON "OPPOSITION".

I AM FRUSTRATED, I FEEL LIKE COMMITTING SUICIDE.

THE AIRPORT WAS SUPPOSED TO ONLY FLY SMALL 30 SEATER PLANES AND NOT 100 SEATER REGIONAL TRANSATLANTIC JETS.

AND IT IS MAKING PEOPLE'S LIFE A MISERY.

THE COUNCIL TURNS A BLIND EYE AND HAS COSY RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COUNCILLORS AND MPS. that is why the airport is getting the go -ahead.

NOW THE AIRPORT WANTS TO INCREASE FLIGHTS TO 120,000.

RESIDENTS HAVE DONE THE USUAL THINGS E.G. WRITE TO LOCAL PAPERS. BUT GUESS WHAT THE AIRPORT HAS TAKEN ADVERTS IN THE LOCAL PAPER, so the local paper wont publish anything. Do you see how big this corruption ring is?

SOMEONE STARTED THE "FIGHT THE FLIGHTS" - just trying to get a small mentino on Wiki. There is a pressure group mentined for Heathrow and Stanstead.

RESIDENTS HAVE NO VOICE. CAN'T EVEN HAVE A SMALL SECTION ON WIKI WITH A FEW LINES (FULLY REFERENCED) TO REPORTS ETC.. TO PROVE ALL THE POINTS THE AIRPORT IS SAYING ARE ALL LIES.

London City Airport have employed a PR company. They issue a press release about a transatlantic service and it ends up on Wiki even though the A318 plane has been approved to be fly from the airport. This is blatent advertising for future services. But so long as it appears on Bloomberg so must be "gospel".

I hope they build a nuclear power plant on your backyard and then go through the same crap.

would move away if it were not for the housing market. Originally added to User talk:MilborneOne by 78.147.188.151 (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Planning history

I think the planning history should be removed it is unreferenced and does not appear to add any value to the article. The only point of note is the limit of movements and that could be discussed in probably just a few paragraphs. Any thoughts from editors. MilborneOne (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed as relevant material is in other places in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Tidy up needed!!!!

The discussion is all clutered. Remove old stuff.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.188.151 (talk • contribs) 2008-08-17T00:27:37 (UTC)

See WP:TALK on how things are done on Wikipedia regarding talk pages. Thanks/wangi (talk) 23:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppostion section not BEEN ALLOWED!!!

I want to show there is a BIAS from Wiki editors. For instance if you look at the "Stanstead airport" wiki page. There is a Section called "Opposition". Yet a similar section for London City Airport has not been allowed?

Clearly there is "bias" from editors?

For "London City Airport" - there is a Opposition Group called "Fight the Flights" who oppose the airport's expansion. So people who know nothing about the subject matter then delete the section.

It would be nice if there is a link to the "Fight the Flights" web page (at the moment this is only a Blog). If they decide to get a .com it would help....

I note for "Stanstead Airport" there is a link to the Stop Standstead Expansion.

So Wiki editors have to apply the "same" standard?

I don't plan on further edits on London City Airport, but the page will be poorer for it.