Jump to content

Talk:O'Hare International Airport: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Notification of altered sources needing review #IABot
Line 289: Line 289:


Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 18:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 18:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

== Prospective flights section ==

I am of the opinion that this section should stay. The only argument given so far in edit summaries in that [[WP:AIRPORTS]] says otherwise. As far as my reading of [[WP:AIRPORTS]] goes at best it describe what should be in the destinations tables, and even there it is ambiguous. If there is a page I'm missing I'd appreciate being pointed at it as I'm not finding anything that is as clear cut as the edit summaries suggest. Furthermore, [[WP:AIRPORTS]] does not even seem to be a guideline and so are at best, a suggestion to which common sense should be applied. At the very least I think the resumption of flights to Cuba should be included given the significant press coverage they have received. I'd agree that the section may currently be overly long and not all possibilities should be included but where there is significant press coverage about a possible resumption (such as in the case of Cuba flights) then an airport article seems a logical please to put this. [[User:Dpmuk|Dpmuk]] ([[User talk:Dpmuk|talk]]) 01:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:41, 24 June 2016

New Runway coming October 2013 / infobox shot update needed

O'Hare will have another new runway open for business October 2013. Does anybody know its designation?Raryel (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

10C/28C, to open on October 17, 2013. I added it to the text, with source. We need to shop for a better aerial/satellite photo for the infobox. The 2011 USGS shot is just not up to date. We need something from this year, 2013, that shows the completed 10C/28C that will enter service and the pavement on the ground for 10R/28L which also exists, but is not scheduled to enter service until October 2015. --Mareklug talk 20:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ord, Nebraska?

This:

Ord, Nebraska is the Valley County seat town in central Nebraska. It has a population of about 2,400. The economy is almost entirely agri-related. It is named for Civil War era General Ord, for whom Fort Ord in California is also named. General Ord was the commander at a fort in Central Nebraska about the time the town of Ord was being formed.

Defnitely shouldn't be at the top of this page. It only makes a vague sense if someone gets here by linking from ORD as a redirect; to the vast majority of people who get here from other links, it will make no sense at all. Perhaps an Ord (disambiguation) page is in order? --Jfruh 21:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PIA

Why does PIA say Manchester here which Manchester is a stopover and in Houston they don't mention Manchester which is also a stopover.

Good airport

For a huge airport, it seems to be relatively painless to use, easy to get around, and plenty of space and facilities. I'm rather critical of most airports, as my local airport, Shannon Airport, is one of the most relaxed international airports I've encountered. Is O'Hare generally well regarded? I note the article includes its being voted top airport by Business Traveler Magazine readers, but what about in a broader context?

Oh - and the worst airport I have ever been at in terms of chaos, overcrowding and rubbish facilities is Dublin Airport with its measly single small terminal building. Heathrow under normal conditions didn't seem that bad, certainly by comparison.

193.1.100.109 10:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hey, did you notice there are so many freaking signs in that place? You really can't get lost!--Press208 00:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Press208 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy editing

Sections such as "However in 2005, Hartsfield overtook O'Hare as the world's busiest airport in terms of takeoffs and landings. This was mainly due to the federal government imposing flight caps at O'Hare to reduce flight delays at one of the world's most delayed airport[1], O'Hare was the busiest airport.[2] In terms of total passengers served, Hartsfield has held the title of world's busiest airport for 8 years now, but Chicago also has commercial air traffic to Midway Airport. If Midway did not exist, O'Hare would be the busier airport over Hartsfield." need to be rewritten to improve grammar and style. If I have more time, I'll come back to do it. If someone else can first, please do. --CPAScott 13:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about also doing some spell checking. I mean, having words like "Costomer" as opposed to "Customer" just looks really bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.103.231 (talk)

please sign your posts. when you get the chance, please register. The undertow 06:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UFO Incident

The Chicago Tribune has reported that the employees have spotted a HUGE UFO over this place. It is all over the Internet, especially Google, other search engines. Can this incident be mentioned ? Martial Law 22:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • My thinking is that the article is too long, and should be trimmed. What better place to start than the 100% juicy BS that is UFOlogy? Its being "all over the Internet, especially Google" does not matter, since the pages are propagating a single meme over and over again. Speciate 00:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It may well have stood the "test of time" (hardly a wiki criterion) because the page is long and messy. In any case, just because you can bully this UFO frass onto wikipedia doesn't change the fact that a "HUGE" UFO hovering over O'Hare in the afternoon and only being noticed by twelve UA cargo handlers is impossible. Speciate 06:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is possible that the Hartsfield article is too long as well, and it may be less messy. A world class airport also deserves not to have its page sullied with pathetic UFO-mongering. Address the issue: A huge shiny disc hovering over O'Hare in the daytime, but nobody else sees it. Is it a magic UFO? Or, maybe, just maybe, there was nothing solid there? And please, I hope you are a kid, because if you are an adult you use far too many exclamation points. Speciate 07:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • More Speciate Rubbish! I said the the Hartsfield article was too SHORT!! If I'm a kid, then you easily qualify as a curmudgeon. Either way you are an 'L7'-type of person.--Inetpup 08:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I re-wrote the entry on this incident, and removed the John Hilkevitch comments from this section as they receive adequate coverage in Chicago O'Hare UFO sighting 2006 article. CJKreklow 04:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Separation of domestic/international flights

I've noticed that at a few US airports (specifically JFK, EWR, ORD and LAX) some airlines domestic and international destinations are seperated. This is not set up in the standard form as set forth in the ProjectWiki Airport guide. Plus, when it's being done, it's inconsistent even within the airport page - i.e. DL and UA destinations being seperated, but AA and NW remaining intact at LAX. Also, people don't/shouldn't break it down for the airlines' regional ops, because 1) it looks awful, and 2) it just doesn't make much sense. So, stop doing it. Thanks. Andrewb729 13:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it easier to find the information I need when it is seperated and therefore believe that we should revert to the way it was. Thanks for your consideration. Anonymous

Updated Data

I've added the final data for the 2006 statistics for airport operations (passengers only). The original tally was about a million and a half off, so I added the numbers. This came from the website http://www.aci-na.org/asp/traffic.asp?art=216. --Press208 00:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A, D, J

Why are there no concourses A, D, or J?? -- Georgia guy (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've always thought the Concourse layouts for O'Hare were on the odd side as well as confusing. Personally, the only terminal I like that i've been in there is the United Terminal. It's very similar to the Northwest McNamara in Detroit. The AA Terminal is very confusing and I hate the gate areas. They are in need of a facelift.--Golich17 (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The odd ordering of Concourse names has to do with the order in which buildings were constructed, demolished, and then reconstructed. My concern with Terminals and Concourses is that the destination table lists Concourses like 1E and 1F, which don't exist. 1B and 1C exist, and 2E and 2F exist. I'll go ahead and change such errors soon if no one objects.Bizzarechipmonk (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concourses A, D, and J used to exist but were demolished during expansion. N419BH (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to transit from Nashvill to Chicago to Narita,Japan

Dear sir, I would like to know , I will travel from Nashvill to Chicago airport. I need to clame my bagags in Chicago for again check in or my bagage can check though Narita? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.153.11.143 (talk) 06:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Air Taxi

According to Airnav.com, 34% of all traffic at O'Hare is "air taxi," defined as all non-scheduled charter operations under CFAR Part 135. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HC-LLC (talk • contribs) 19:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Runway Designation/Numbering

Please note that a single runway has two headings, for example hypothetical runway 22/4 can be approached from 220 degrees or 4 degrees. It is still only one runway. I removed the "6+2" comment about O'Hare and rewrote it for that reason. Chicago O'Hare has three parallel runways, not six. Raryel (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago will have 6 parallel runways when they finish construction. By the way, runway 4/22 can be approached from 220 or 040 degrees, not 220 or 4 degrees. N419BH 13:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable Initiatives section

The sustainable initiatives section appears to be copy/pasted. Adding sources and rewriting the section to proper tense is required. (N419BH (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I have deleted the section. If someone wants to rewrite it with sources and without copypaste go ahead. --N419BH (talk) 05:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page moved. The reason to move the page that created this discussion was not something supported by any naming convention. Then we have the airport page. Then there is the strength of the arguments presented in the discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago O'Hare International Airport → O'Hare International Airport — Was moved from O'Hare to Chicago O'Hare without consensus. Should be moved back Purplebackpack89 14:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, arguments involving naming conventions and Google/Google Scholar hits
Oppose: While moving the article without a discussion was improper, the official name of the airport as used in airport and airline announcements is "Chicago O'Hare International Airport". N419BH 16:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it is the official name of the airport, why was it improper? Not all moves require discussion. --WikiDonn (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not wrong to move a page, but it's also not wrong to contest a move made without consensus Purplebackpack89 22:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We like to discuss major changes here before doing them. Moving the article for one of the busiest airports in the world is a major change. Next time open a discussion. That's all. N419BH 01:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMO it wasn't improper at all, but that's not the issue. See vote below. Andrewa (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Despite what many seem to automatically assume, the official name isn't always the preferred article title under Wikipedia's article naming policy, and this seems to be a case in point. See vote below. Andrewa (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The common name of the airport is O'Hare International Airport, and it's unambiguous, so it's clearly the preferred article title. But assume good faith. The move wasn't improper. It's possible (I hope likely) that it will be reversed after this discussion. But that's just how wikis work. Andrewa (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't think I was assuming bad faith. Typically we discuss things like moving articles before doing them. Hence describing the move as "Improper". However, in this case I'm assuming the user didn't know about the ability to hold a discussion such as this. Hence I have not warned them. If you however feel I am not adhering to WP:AGF, I do apologize. N419BH 03:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In regular English, we usually just say "O'Hare", "Chicago", or "O'Hare Airport". I would assume very rarely do people use all four words in this title. Purplebackpack89 20:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You need to provide evidence of that. As it stands, your comment is anecdotal. Provide the evidence, and I will happily support the move. Fail to provide it, and I oppose the move. You need to convince me. Skinsmoke (talk) 13:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The move request is based on 1) A prior move that may need to be undone (the title of this article was O'Hare International Airport until just a few days ago); 2) naming conventions (which don't always translate to the most common name). That being said, here are Google hits and Google Scholar hits:
  • “O’Hare Airport”-1.24M
  • “O’Hare International Airport”-658,000
  • “Chicago O’Hare International Airport”-192,000
    • "O'Hare International Airport" minus "Chicago O'Hare International Airport"-466,000
  • “O’Hare Airport” 4,090
  • “O’Hare International Airport”-2,210
  • “Chicago O’Hare International Airport”-862
    • "O'Hare International Airport" minus "Chicago O'Hare International Airport"-1,348

As you can see, O'Hare International Airport is used more without a Chicago in front of it than with it. That, combined with the naming conventions argument, is a clear case for going back to just O'Hare International Airport Purplebackpack89 15:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • But the Federal Aviation Authority uses "Chicago O'Hare International Airport", [1],[2]. Many internet sites from within Chicago may use the name without Chicago, such as the Chicago Department of Aviation site, but I do not think that this necessarily reflects general usage. Cjc13 (talk) 11:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The official name doesn't count for much, as noted above. So far as the common name goes, the evidence presented above suggests that the name without the city is much more common. An unsupported opinion won't carry much weight against this evidence. Andrewa (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only evidence appears to be the Google searches. The search for "O'Hare Airport" seems to have been done without the quotation marks, unlike the other searches. For "O'Hare Airport" with quotation marks is 357,000,[3] not 1.24M. You can do a search for ""O'Hare International Airport" -"Chicago O'Hare International Airport"",[4] which produces 330,000 results but many of those are from chicago-related websites, such as the Chicago Tribune, where it is not surprising that do not use the Chicago because they are local to the area. What we should be considering is what someone from outside the area would call the airport. Cjc13 (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We shouldn't if it violates naming conventions. Naming conventions say drop the Chicago and go with a shorter title. You seem to be disregarding a major WP guideline. Your Google hit numbers can't be right-I clicked the same link five minutes ago and got 437,000. Also, I doubt you have examined all those references as to determine whether or not they are Chicago-related...on the first page, many of them weren't Purplebackpack89 15:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Destination

I'm trying to recreate the map that used to be on this page, showing all destinations available from O'Hare. Is there a consensus on whether the Destinations list should include only non-stop destinations, or should also include direct flights? I am STRONGLY in favor of limiting the list to only non-stop destinations. This would involve, for example, axing cities like Hyderabad and everything in Pakistan. First, this gives a consistent standard. "Direct" varies widely by carrier, and can even involve plane changes. Continental, for example, advertises a direct flight from San Antonio to Guam, even with two stops and a plane change. Second, "direct" flights are changed all the time. Carriers are constantly rerouting these on temporary bases. Third, I just think this gives a better read on what's accessible from the airport. The non-stop flight list is the list you would see on the flight board at the airport itself. Further, one can buy a ticket from Chicago to anywhere, so why include cities like Hyderabad, where the stopover doesn't include a plane change? It's meaningful to list Delhi, but why list Hyderabad over, say, Chennai? I plan to go over this list and prune not only out-of-date destinations, but also flights that are merely direct. Any other points of view? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The-Postman (talk • contribs) 21:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the suggestion. Airport guidelines say to list all direct routes except those where the stopover is in a hub.122.172.192.95 (talk) 10:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And also, the aircraft type must be the same all the way through. Snoozlepet (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•Could anyone find/make another destinations map? The one currently used is outdated/wrong.
An example is United's flight to Singapore, which is not displayed.

Charters

Swift Air provides or is scheduled to provide regular, scheduled service to Zagreb and Belgrade. If there is a problem with including this on the page, state your argument here.75.34.183.169 (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any rules that would exclude this content here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airports/page_content.75.34.183.169 (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Swift Air flights to Zagreb and Belgrade are neither regular nor scheduled. They are chartered. You cannot buy tickets from Swift Air. Air Plus sells the tickets. It has been discussed many times at WP:AIRPORT over the years on what to do with charter flights and the consensus is they should be excluded unless they are regular (continuing) or reccurring. (For example, China-Saipan flights are chartered many months each time and the contract may go to another Chinese airline for a few months. Airlines don't sell tickets because Chinese tourists must be in groups to be admitted.) The Swift Air flights this summer are not scheduled to return next summer. There can be destinations listed as "seasonal" or "charter", but I've never seen both. Non-recurrence in this case forbids the "seasonal" label, and if "charter" is used, there must be an end date because it is known. HkCaGu (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Neither regular nor scheduled." Not true. Any search on these routes will show that these flights are scheduled for weekly service all summer. Further, just because the tickets aren't available through Orbitz shouldn't preclude their inclusion here. Finally, this site gives a conflicting start date, but suggests the flights are not seasonal:http://www.jetsettersblog.com/blog/2011/06/01/swift-air-nonstop-chicago-zagreb-service/. I have seen no articles stating an end date, although they certainly could be out there. I'd be interested to see the articles on this route suggesting its non-regular, non-scheduled, and seasonal nature.75.34.183.169 (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Swift Air is a charter airline, and it's clear on their website that Air Plus sells the flight. Air Plus features a booking calendar and all scheduled flights. They aren't any beyond the end of this summer. HkCaGu (talk) 02:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, provide me to some sort of governing rule and I'll relent. I have again tried to find a rule governing charters, and have failed. I don't see why the seller of the tickets should matter--these flights are all open to the public, regular, scheduled, and according to some sources are not seasonal.75.34.181.124 (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even read the flyairplus.com website? Chartered flights are not "scheduled" or "regular" (This is simple aviation language.) And there are no flights after September 14. I can't afford the time to dig into the past many years of discussion about chartered flights. That is just the consensus as those who reverted you remember. HkCaGu (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that they are charters. A new section for charter carriers needs to be created and Swift Air needs to be listed there. Also, on the Belgrade and Zagreb airport pages, Swift Air is listed under the charter section of the article. Snoozlepet (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Air France flights to CDG

According to this article, Air France flights to CDG are "ending" October 28 (which I find very odd that AF would pull out of ORD). Yet, according to the Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport article, AF's CDG-ORD flights are seasonal (which is also odd). Which one is it? Are these seasonal, or is AF pulling out for good in October 2011? I went on Air France's website, and was able to find direct ORD-CDG AF flights for November 2011. I am making a correction, to reflect that the CDG flights w/AF are not ending, nor seasonal. Skyduster (talk) 01:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a thread on A.net related to this. It is saying that DL will start nonstop service from ORD-CDG, to replace AF on this route. Here is the link to the thread: DL Replacing AF on ORD-CDG --98.250.92.159 (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some random guy's personal blog not a reliable source. You can still book CDG-ORD flights on their website but you cannot book ORD-CDG. Leave it alone as it is cause maybe AF will resume this route again in the near future or it may operate on a seasonal basis. Snoozlepet (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A.net is not "some random guy's personal blog". It is a site that contains forums in which users discuss aviation news in the site's Civil Aviation Forum. However, I will leave the infoboxes alone, because some users on there have stated that DL has no interest in internationally expanding the ORD market. So Skyduster would indeed be right that AF is not ending ORD-CDG. 98.250.92.159 (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still, that is NOT considered a reliable source. I was able to find Air France operating ORD-CDG flights and vice versa all year. Also, Delta' website, I was able only to find DL-operated ORD-CDG flights only thru early March. After that, all operated by Air France so I have denoted the DL route as seasonal. Snoozlepet (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Air France flights are now seasonal. The AF-operated flight is not bookable from October 30 and is all DL thru the end of March 2012 then AF operates the route next summer. So, seasonal is the best way to denote those flights. Snoozlepet (talk) 12:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aer Lings - Dublin

As Aer Lings use USPC in Dublin which Terminal are there flights arriving in over here. It says T5 but is than not the international terminal or can it hanlde other flights that clear USPC to?Jamie2k9 (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

O'Hare's official airport website still has Aer Lingus flights operating from the International Terminal 5 (when passengers deplane, it will not lead to US Customs and Immigration but instead will lead straight out in the terminal). Unless, you have a source stating that Aer Lingus moved than it still operating from Terminal 5. At ATL, flights to/from Dublin still operate from the International Concourse E but passenger will deplane straight out onto the concourse in ATL and not to customs and immigrations. Snoozlepet (talk) 06:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Had it confimed that is what happons with all EI US airports at the monement. Jamie2k9 (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image request

Hmm. How about we include a map of O'Hare's terminals? And that can go right into the "Terminals" section. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 20:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

flickr link

I have re-removed the link to http://www.flickr.com/photos/12530375@N08/6819703937/sizes/h via this edit.

Quite simply, the link goes contrary to WP:ELPOINTS "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article." At best, an argument might be made to add it to the external links section, although since the links also fails WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE, I believe that WP:NOT#REPOSITORY would then apply. Instead, adding a dmoz link would be more appropriate in the external links section. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"the links also fails WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE"
Anyone who reads those sections will see the link doesn't fail them.
"External links should not normally be used in the body of an article." So what's "normally" mean? Good a guess as any: "Few external links are so important to the article that they should appear in its body where the reader can't miss them." This link is important. The history sections of most all Wikipedia airport articles are fair or worse, and ORD's article is no exception. If they were available, authoritative diagrams from decades ago would be a large improvement to every airport article. Too bad few are online. Tim Zukas (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding what "normally" means, you should follow the ref next to the statement, which spells it out more clearly: " Exceptions are rare. Links to Wiktionary and Wikisource can sometimes be useful. Other exceptions include use of templates like {{visualizer}}, which produces charts on the Toolserver, and {{external media}}, which is only used when non-free and non-fair use media cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia." Or read the rest of the line after the ref: "Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable." How you are wanting to interpret WP:EL isn't syncing with how it's written.
re: WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE - the link meeting these is arguable; and as I am assuming we are unlikely to agree with each other on it, an RfC or a message at WP:ELN may be appropriate to reach consensus on adding it to the external links section. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine dining at O'Hare

During the 1960's O'Hare featured a fine dining restaurant - the 7 Continents. It was located in the round building adjacent to terminal 1 and 2. It attracted not only travelers but locals desiring a fine dining experience. Additionally, before security became rabid there existed a viewing platform in terminal 2 where one could go outdoors and watch the planes land and take off. - J. Patlyek — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.206.144 (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan International Airlines to ORD

For those that have added stuff on the page or have removed stuff, here is a source that states as of Sunday, March 24, 2013 (yesterday) that the flights have been suspended. The source is: http://www.piac.com.pk/PIA_PolicynTerms/pia-CHIinfo.asp Hope this helps. -Connor (WorldTraveller101 | talk | contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 23:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source says that flights was suspended in 2012 not 2013. They are planning to resume service soon. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ground transportation

I was trying to make the ground transportation section a little more accessible, used SFO & BOS as guidance. Open to discuss appropriate level of detail. - Broke out ground transportation from facilities section - Added link to O'Hare Blue line station wiki article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Another user hawk (talk • contribs) 22:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update on traffic stats

Can anyone update the intl traffic stat. They are two years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airplane54 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Icelandair service resumes or begins

Icelandair is starting service here in March 2016. Airline Route states that it is a resumption as it served Reykjavik-Chicago service in October 1988. However, the airline's press release says that it is a new service but the second/third paragraph of the press release states that Chicago was served previously by Icelandair. When did O'Hare open? The airline may serve MDW and transferred operations to ORD after the latter airport opened. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 08:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents section needs to be trimmed

Per wiki standards, the "incidents" section of an airport entry should only contain references pertaining to incidents which directly effected the airfield (i.e. happened on premesis or near the airport). For example a flight which crashed in NYC but happened to originate at ORD should not be included here. 108.81.226.148 (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on O'Hare International Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines charter service to Havana

I have removed Havana as a charter destination for United Airlines since no source was provided saying that the airline operates any charter flights to Cuba from O'Hare. Couldn't find anything stating so. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 06:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on O'Hare International Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on O'Hare International Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:O'Hare International Airport/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The article needs a few more citations/references, especially in the history area, though in other areas, clearer source identifications could be made.Gittinsj 04:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Gittinsj[reply]

Last edited at 04:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on O'Hare International Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prospective flights section

I am of the opinion that this section should stay. The only argument given so far in edit summaries in that WP:AIRPORTS says otherwise. As far as my reading of WP:AIRPORTS goes at best it describe what should be in the destinations tables, and even there it is ambiguous. If there is a page I'm missing I'd appreciate being pointed at it as I'm not finding anything that is as clear cut as the edit summaries suggest. Furthermore, WP:AIRPORTS does not even seem to be a guideline and so are at best, a suggestion to which common sense should be applied. At the very least I think the resumption of flights to Cuba should be included given the significant press coverage they have received. I'd agree that the section may currently be overly long and not all possibilities should be included but where there is significant press coverage about a possible resumption (such as in the case of Cuba flights) then an airport article seems a logical please to put this. Dpmuk (talk) 01:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:O%27Hare_International_Airport&oldid=726736609"