Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports

Terminals information deletion

Hi, I wasn't aware of the discussion on terminal information deletion. I regret the decision taken because it's interesting to know: which airlines are grouped together, the volumes of international and domestic destinations, where each alliance is mostly represented inside aiports. I think this go beyond pure WP:NOTRAVEL policy. Wykx (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It is in the above "Request for comments on the Airlines and destinations tables" discussion. The major point was we are trying to keep the airline tables from falling under WP:NOTRAVEL. It is not that terminal information violates WP:NOTRAVEL, its actually very important and notable for an airport page, but the problem is the way its presented in the destionation table. The current format seems like something a travel guide such as WikiVoyage would have, which we are trying to stay clear of per WP:NOTRAVEL. We are trying to encourage the information to be in actual paragraph form with useful information like: "Terminal 3 houses all SkyTeam carriers, Air France, Delta, KLM. The terminal was built in 1969 and was the first to feature moving walkways in addition to a tram. The terminal is equipped with international arrivals facilities, handling all international arrivals at the airport." See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati/Northern_Kentucky_International_Airport#Main_Terminal_.28Terminal_3.29 for a simple example of this. A paragraph such as this is much more encyclopedic than a large table which does not give you any information other than Airline A uses Concourse B. In contrast, its difficult to show the destinations of an airport in a paragraph form, so its makes more sense to list the actual destinations in a table form. I hope this made sense, please tell me if I am not explaining this well. Stinger20 (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Stinger20: In that case, I would advise to reformulate articles at the time that you delete terminal information. Wykx (talk) 07:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Wykx: I am not going to add that information to an article without references and information on the terminals/concourses of an airport. Just a quick example, I removed the concourse information for SDF in the table, but looking at the airport's website, I do not see any information about which airlines use which gates/concourse. All of the terminal information currently in the tables in unreferenced. Stinger20 (talk) 11:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Stinger20: Of course the information should added provided it is sourced, like for any other information. Wykx (talk) 09:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Wykx, why do you think the terminal information is beyond WP:NOTRAVEL? It is like telling passengers where to go for their flight. An example of this was at the Heathrow Airport article, where it was noted that certain British Airways flights departed from T5 while others departed from T3. Another example is how notes would be added indicating, say, "arrivals are handled at T1 and departures at T3." Overall, terminal information very much belongs in a travel guide in my eyes, not in an encyclopedia – it is not notable enough, and secondary references are hard to find.

Stinger20, I don't think the solution is just to place the terminal information in a paragraph instead – the information is still there. I don't feel it is necessary to indicate the terminal used by each airline. In the case of Heathrow Airport, it can be noted that T5 is dominated by British Airways. Or at McCarran Airport, it can be written that, "T1 only handles domestic flights, while T3 handles all international flights and some domestic flights." If a passenger wants to know from which concourse his or her flight will depart, they should go to the airport's website or to a flight tracker – not to an encyclopedia. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 05:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sunnya343: You can see the terminal information from the traveller's perspective but you can also see it from the airline or the airport's perspective with some confort, facility of correspondances and economics criteria. Wykx (talk) 07:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for coming late to this discussion, but what exactly is the policy now for including terminal information in airline tables? As a casual observer to airport articles, I find it a bit confusing to follow -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Whats new?, there appears to be consensus to remove this column. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 04:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Having a quick read through the above discussion, it doesn't seem the column's removal was a main focus of it and it appeared to just happen as a by-product. I think it serves, in many cases, encyclopedic value personally, and I think an issue regular members of this project will find is that many editors will be caught unaware and take issue with it, which seems to have started here at least. Having found something similar when making changes to a Manual of Style in a different Wikiproject and then attempting to implement them, you get a lot of editors caught unaware when you make the changes across multiple articles. Might I suggest, before you start deleting these columns from every article, you attempt to make editors aware of the impending changes before you actually do them. Doing that in itself is hard and you still won't capture everyone, but you may run into some edit wars and then wider problems otherwise. Personally, as someone not involved in the original discussion, I don't think it has been clearly expressed. Just my 2 cents -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Disapointed in the removal of terminal information. Found it useful. Jamie2k9 (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and I think a lot of editors will be disgruntled when they see terminal info being deleted. -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Whats new?, you're right that it's hard. Getting people to contribute to that RfC was hard enough. It seems the only way to get people's attention is to be WP:BOLD and make the edits. To editors who may be disgruntled, I would consider WP:SILENCE. Although it's nice to see that people are talking about it now.

Jamie2k9, to echo the comments of Andrewgprout, you and I as aviation enthusiasts may find this information useful, but I don't think it is notable overall to the average reader. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 23:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sunnya343: No arguments about difficultly attracting comment on matters like this from me, I know it all too well. Remember also that consensus can change especially given silence is the weakest form of consensus. It is why I suggested above that before making widespread deletions, attempt to warn editors of the perceived consensus, perhaps through talk pages at major airport articles and various aviation themed Wikiprojects to either sort out any issues before edit wars begin, or strengthen consensus on the matter. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sunnya343: Wikipedia is not only for the average reader. Wykx (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Neither it is a fansite.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I've seen a number of articles where users have attempted to revert deletions of this column. I would strongly suggest opening a discussion specifically on this issue of whether or not to include terminal info. You do have only the weakest form of consensus in SILENCE with multiple instances of other user's disagreeing. -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I have made a majority of the changes and out of the pages I have changed, I have been challenged only TWICE (See below for LAX). I am not sure where you are seeing all these "attempts to revert the deletion of the column". Due to WP:Silence, I am completely justified to make the edits since there were no major objections and the removal of the destionation column was discussed pretty explicitly. I have since stopped as a result of this discussion, but I think we need to keep the changes and hopefully point more users to this discussion so we can come to an actual consensus. Stinger20 (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I wasn't criticising any one editor, nor any editor that made changes. I was just making the point that, in my opinion, there is some dissent to the removal of the terminal information. It was not a focus of the above wide-ranging discussion, and happened as a by-product thus why it is covered by SILENCE rather than an overt consensus. I would very much like to see an explicit consensus made on the issue. I suspect that, despite my opposing view, you may get more editors in support of removing but I don't think it is clear enough to start making wholesale changes. -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm watching LAX and I think we should be moving the info out of the table instead of simply deleting. A textual listing or even another table of just what airlines are present in each terminal is more than encyclopedic (at least more than the destination listing!) HkCaGu (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

To all the users involved in the edit war on LAX, while I agree the terminals should not be listed, I think we need to wait for more consensus before changing very important airports like JFK/ATL/LAX/CDG/ect. I would ask that we change medium airports and some larger airports like BWI/LGA/SLC, but I am not sure were are ready to change pages like LAX. Stinger20 (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest stop making changes to any airport until you get an explicit consensus. Your statement to change only select airports is admitting you have an issue, and sounds like trying to shy away from larger airports where you think you can get away with deletions with less page watchers. -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I already stopped changing airport pages since WP:SILENCE is no longer valid, I am trying to stop any more changes from taking place, but I am saying keep what is already changed to avoid more edit wars. I am not "getting away" with deletions, I am perfectly valid in making an edit that users have agreed upon. My issue is with users refusing to participate in discussions then disagreeing with the changes we make. We need to focus on wether the terminal/concourse information should be removed, not wether users were justified in making the changes that have already occurred. This happened on the last RFC, we need to be clear and focused if we are ever to get consensus on an issue. Stinger20 (talk) 02:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Then perhaps the best way to achieve consensus is an RfC on specifically the terminal issue -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I totally agree, I don't have time to set it up tonight, but if anyone else can that would be great! Stinger20 (talk) 02:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I have been an anonymous follower and editor in good faith of several major airport pages for years. Let me begin by saying the editors I have disagreed with have done nothing wrong, having now seen this page. However, the decisions regarding deletion of airport terminal information seems extremely questionable and a step in the wrong direction. The comments above seem to have ended a month ago, around early March, but I am in the past week seeing just a few airports being reverted to the format discussed here. However, this is not consistent. So the first issue is the inconsistency that currently exists between airport pages. Also, this page seems to indicate that changes should not be made anymore while further discussion occurs. However, changes are still sometimes being made and no further discussion is happening. So second issue is commitment to a strategy needs to be made. Additionally, I (and many of my peers, who outnumber the small group of users engaged in the earlier conversation on this page) all agree there is added value to the terminal information. If I am reading this page, the concern was WT:Travel or that it is being a travel guide. However, the information is useful as it indicates operational information that is valuable to stakeholders of an airport, and not just passengers who need a travel guide. While that may be an additional use of the information, eliminating it completely only removes added value/has negative impact. There is no upside or positive to removing terminal information. This is the third issue. I registered today because of this specific issue as it is important to many Wiki users and currently is in a very poor state. Forgive me if I am using this page incorrectly. I welcome feedback and clarity from more experienced users but want to represent many individuals in adding to the disagreement with removing terminal information. I have no issue with people having made edits but agree with the comments from 1 March 2017 that the decision to remove terminal information at all is not the right decision. OslPhlWasChi (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

OslPhlWasChi, it looks like you missed this discussion, which was a WP:RFC. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 23:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Sunnya343, Thank you, I do now see the second closed conversation. I and my peers still have a few major concerns with the current outcome. The single argument that seems to have resulted in removing terminal information is that it falls under WP:NOTTRAVEL as it is only useful for passengers/travelers. This however is incorrect. People across many professions and stakeholders of airports who are not travelers find great value in knowing what terminals are occupied by which airlines. From real estate professionals, to facility planners, to operators, whether they be direct employees of an airport, consultants and partners of an airport, or even just enthusiasts all receive value from knowing this. So between a primary argument that seems flawed, and a sample size of just 17 users, this outcome seems very flawed. Even if this in the final outcome as of March 26, the condition has been let inconsistent and the differing level of information across airport pages is creating, in my opinion, more of an informational issue than the initial NOTTRAVEL assertion. This is a major/greater risk of the small sample size. If less than 20 users are going to make such a change, then the changers must be ready to implement it and yes, that means it will be a great burden as the sample size is so small. But it has been nearly 10 days (after earlier periods of inactivity) and the conditional remains inconsistent creating much greater issues. OslPhlWasChi (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

OslPhlWasChi, I believe your argument has been addressed in the RfC. Regarding the sample size, I think it's sufficient; I don't think expecting a much higher number of participants is reasonable, as there are not too many frequent contributors to WT:AIRPORTS. Also, most importantly, the RfC contains the opinions of random editors who may not be regular editors of airport articles/aviation enthusiasts, creating a diverse sample of opinions and avoiding WP:CONLIMITED.

As to the fact that the change has not been implemented widely yet, we cannot expect it to happen overnight. Also, the responsibility to remove the terminals column lies not just with those who explicitly supported its removal in the RfC; other editors can read the discussion and assist. Of course, editors don't always have the time to edit the thousands of airport articles. In addition, it is advised to implement changes slowly in order to account for any new concerns that arise. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 03:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sunnya343: Thank you again for your response and I promise this is the last one from me. I understand the desire to close this topic out for good having caught up in the last 24 hours on this page. In response to the RfC addresses the issue, I think this gets us into a cyclical pattern. Some say terminal information is for passengers - this is true. Others say there is value for non-passengers to understanding terminal information - this is also true. Therefore, the decision to remove the information may result in some passengers no longer using Wiki as a travel guide, but it will additionally result in lost information, of an appropriate use, by others. Simply on logic, my support would have been for keeping it as removing it has additional negative impact. On sample size, I appreciate your response and see now that there are in fact few users on this WT page. However, I think it is misleading to think that this small sample could be representative of the larger user base who use the airport pages. I myself have been a user and editor for years and have only discovered this WT function in the past 24 hours (I am also not technically savy, but same goes for many readers). I also can appreciate that change takes time. However, again because the supposed benefit of this change is so minor (if at all), the inconsistent nature over the implementation period could be a temporary negative condition that outweighs the long-term value of this change. Anyways, thanks to the folks on this page who care and put the time in. Lets hope for some better outcomes moving forward. OslPhlWasChi (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Airport names in local languages

Pardon my ignorance here, but when did it become consensus that airport infoboxes should no longer contain the airport's name in the native language(s) of the city/country where it is located, and that in the text itself they should be prosified instead of being put inside parentheses? I've checked the archives and there seems to be no indication that such a consensus was reached.

I've looked at several airport articles both locally (I'm from the Philippines, so I'm appalled to see "This airport is also known as xxx in Filipino" when it was previously parenthesized) and abroad, and it looks like these edits have taken place within only the last few months. I'm loath to endorse the engineering of consensus based on changing the facts on the ground (i.e. edit articles the way you want, then force a new consensus based on those edits), so unless something has changed I'm seriously considering reverting things to how they previously were. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 14:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know it is still standard practice by the project to use the local language name in the infobox "native name". MilborneOne (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Sky Harbor, may I ask what you find so appalling about that? You may have noticed that I made those edits. At Mactan–Cebu International Airport for example, I removed the native names from the infobox because there were two of them and it was adding to the length of the infobox. Also, I moved the translations out of the lead sentence per WP:LEADCLUTTER and MOS:FORLANG: "a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence" (emphasis mine). The separation between subject and verb in that sentence was too great in my opinion. All in all, I wanted the translations to stand out less, as this is the English Wikipedia.

Of course this is largely a WP:BOLD move on my part; if you feel it is wholly inappropriate, feel free to revert. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 23:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment on terminal information in airline and destination tables

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the terminal information column be removed from all airline and destination tables at airport articles? -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey

NOTE: This section is for indicating support or opposition only. Discuss or replies should be made in the next section.

• Oppose removal: I would keep the information provided there is a source for the information, as it is often the case for large airports which several terminals. It gives an indication of how airport is organized in term of allocation of terminals by level of confort, facility of correspondances between airlines and alliances. This information could be also summarized in a encyclopedic textual format but having the list is also easier for the reader to interpret any text attached and in case of any changes information will be more precise. Wykx (talk) 10:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support removal: this information can and should be mentioned elsewhere in the article, and can be found on airport and travel websites. I would also like to take this opportunity to bring up the conflicting information that can be found here[1], where the lead paragraph and bullet #16 are conflicting. Garretka (talk) 12:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support removal.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support removal: unencylopedic info. --Bouzinac (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose removal: Serves a purpose in demonstrating how airlines are grouped at various airports with more than one terminal, particularly in certain contexts such as airline alliances. Doesn't breach NOTAGUIDE in my mind, given specific gate info isn't included. Train station articles commonly list platform arrangements (Willowbrook/Rosa Parks, Stadium, Central, Waterfront, Promenade, etc) which is comparable to terminals. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support removal: Largely unreferenced and nearly always un-referencable and absolutely questionable under WP:NOTTRAVEL.Andrewgprout (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support removal: Per my arguments below, WP:NOTTRAVEL, but I still hold that we should include the information SOURCED in an more encyclopedic form. Stinger20 (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support removal: Per Andrewgprout's comment above. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose removal: I agree with earlier said comments that terminal information can indicate how an airport is organized. From the way I understand the WP:NOTTRAVEL policy, I feel that listing the terminals and concourses is perfectly fine according to WP:NOTTRAVEL. We aren't writing about our experiences during travel and we aren't mentioning distant landmarks, nor are we saying the price of goods; which I feel is the 3 big bullet points of said policy. --KDTW Flyer (talk) 02:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support removal: As per WP:NOTTRAVEL. The terminals, to my mind, do not provide any indication as to how an airport is organised. Look at Toronto Pearson International Airport#Airlines and destinations. What does that tell me about the way the airport is set up? Why is a particular airline at a particular terminal. Both 1 and 3 have cross border, domestic and international flights. You can find out why the airlines are grouped like that further up the page in the Toronto Pearson International Airport#Terminals section where it can be better explained. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support removal: Based on WP:NOTTRAVEL and the reasons articulated above. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support removal: strikes me as superfluous and un-encyclopaedic content that adds nothing to readers' understanding of the subject. GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support removal; mainly as we are not a travel guide. MilborneOne (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support removal- summoned by bot. I supported the earlier decision to maintain the list of destinations at each airport, since I found a site that listed the changes daily, but don't really see similar value in maintaining the list of terminal numbers for each airline. I'm familiar with WP:NOTTRAVEL, but am interested in exceptions where Wikipedia can offer something of specific value that no one else can. If you are trying to determine if you can get to a certain location from a particular airport, then having the destination info is quite valuable. The only other way to get it is through trial and error on the travel sites (or call a travel agent!). I personally have tried to book flights on Jet Blue by selecting endpoints only to learn that the airport pairs I selected have no interconnecting service. I don't see a similar use case demonstrating the utility of knowing what terminal you are flying from until you book your flight, because at that point you will be given all the terminal and gate info by the airline when you travel. There just doesn't seem to be enough value for the maintenance effort required. Another way of looking at it is to flip things around. Instead of having just a list of terminals at each airport, why wouldn't you be able to make a similar argument to have a list of terminal numbers (in addition to the airports served) for each of the airline articles? For example, you'd have to also agree that it made sense to add terminal numbers to this table of British Airways destinations. There are already five ref date errors, which no one has bothered to fix. Therefore, it does not seem to be as useful or necessary to have the terminals numbers. The other arguments in favor don't sway me. Because most airport alliances are already listed somewhere, knowing the terminal groupings doesn't help as much upon deeper inspection. Timtempleton (talk) 05:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOTTRAVEL, unencyclopedic. Undue level of detail. (invited by bot) Jojalozzo (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support removal but needs clarification This RFC would most likely get interpreted as forbidding ever including such. North8000 (talk) 13:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Tim's argument. Difficulties in maintain accuracy, etc. they see me 'troling for RfCs L3X1 (distant write)

Discussion

Following on from a previous RfC here, there was a silent consensus to remove the terminal information column from airline and destination tables at airport articles, such as seen at this diff at Dubai International Airport. A support to remove this column would establish a clear consensus to apply the change to all airport articles with such a table. An opposition to remove the column would provide clear consensus that the column serves a worthwhile purpose and should be permissible at articles. -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Garretka, thank you for noting the contradiction at WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. It appears that was added after our weak consensus was formed as part of the previous RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables. I've removed bullet #16 until we come to consensus in this RfC. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the bullet, I added that quite a while ago during the original "consensus". I should have removed it! Stinger20 (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Wykx, could you please explain what you mean by, "level of confort, facility of correspondances between airlines and alliances"? I don't really understand what this means. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Terminals have been built at different times in history or for different purposes and then have different level of confort. If two airlines are in the same terminal the facility of correspondance is improved. If you have to switch in Kuala Lumpur or in Paris between terminals, it is almost as if you were not in the same airport. Thus it is interesting to know which airline/flights benefit from which level of confort and connexion. Wykx (talk) 11:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Garretka and Andrewgprout, the fact that information is sourced in not against introducing the information. Actually it is the reason why the information can be properly added. If there is no source, it shouldn't be added. Wykx (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

WykxI suspect you have misunderstood the point I was making - my point was exactly as you appear to agree - No available source - shouldn't be added. Mostly the existing terminal information is not reliably sourced.Andrewgprout (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Just because there aren't references within tables currently doesn't mean they don't exist and could not be added. Sourcing terminal information should be possible in almost every case. -- Whats new?^(talk) 21:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Even if such sources exist that would pass WP:RS and are publicly available on the open Web or through library databases (which I doubt), would you be willing to volunteer the 40 hours per week it would take to keep such information current with citations to sources acceptable under WP:RS? Most Wikipedia airport articles are already poorly sourced, but at least the initiation or discontinuation of service between two airports is likely to result in coverage in the news media. Moving airlines between terminals is much less likely to result in such coverage. For example, I just recently learned about the move of American Eagle from Terminal 6 to Terminal 5 at LAX as a result of a gate swap with Delta, which actually happened about a year ago, but did not lead to any news articles at the time. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually yes it is the principle of Wikipedia to update information when it is updated in the sources available. Wykx (talk) 10:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

---

CambridgeBayWeather: The Toronto terminals are separated by the 3-minutes LINK Train as mentioned in the Toronto Pearson International Airport article. The Toronto Pearson International Airport#Terminals section gives some indications and general principles on airlines repartition which are necessary. But the section doesn't include all the airlines and illustrates perfectly the explanation given. Wykx (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

That's the point. The body of the article gives the information but the template does not. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk),

Sunasuttuq 17:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually that's not true. The body doesn't list every airline within every terminal. The table can handle such information much better. -- Whats new?^(talk) 21:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the body lists all the airlines and we already agreed that the information should be in the table in the RfC above. Wykx said that "It gives an indication of how airport is organized in term of allocation of terminals" and KDTW_Flyer said "that terminal information can indicate how an airport is organized." Those statements are what I disagree with. In the example I gave the table list which terminals are used by which airline but not why. The reason the airline use that particular terminal is covered in the body of the article. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not following your comment there. Having the terminal number in the table provides a quick reference guide and not an explanation, you are right. But I do not understand the harm in having the terminal within the table, and the explanation in terminal sections above. Those editors saying remove terminal info because of NOTTRAVEL yet advocating terminal information in prose form elsewhere are displaying quite the double standard. Tables are supposed to provide information in a quick, easy to read format. I still see no reasonable argument against terminal information. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Whats new? Only WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:PRIMARY, WP:V, WP:OR all of these things together attempt to keep Wikipedia an encyclopedia - Encyclopedias are a tertiary source of information - in simple terms this means that they collect and describe already predigested information in a concise form. Any terminal discussion should be based on and referenced to already published in WP:SECONDARY sources such as those in magazines or trade journals. Timetables and Airport websites are WP:PRIMARY resources and should be used only to keep the secondary sources honest not by themselves. This is why the Terminal information (and in my opinion other information commonly found in Airport articles) are very very problematic and stick out like a sore thumb when compared to other parts of Wikipedia. The prose example above is exactly what you would expect in an encyclodedia.Andrewgprout (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Whats new? When I say adding the information to a paragraph I am talking about general overview's like Delta owns Concourse B, all SkyTeam airlines operate from Terminal 3, LLCs use Terminal 2, ect. I think the listing of every airline and which terminal is a) not notable and b) acts too much like a travel guide. In addition, its a table to demonstrate the extent of service at an airport, the terminal listing is not really related to the original purpose of the tables. Stinger20 (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

In response to Andrewgprout you seem to be confusing a lack of sources with the absence of sources in the articles. If they were reliably sourced, would you still oppose their inclusion? If so, why? To Stinger20 I agree the prose form is good but I don't comprehend the argument that terminal information isn't notable and breaches NOTTRAVEL yet every destination is fine. One could make a very similar argument that every airport served denotes a travel guide and every flight between two airports are not notable. Your comment about tables demonstrating extent of service also doesn't add up to me - why does including terminal information not also show the extent of service? Why can't all destinations served by an airport be listed in prose form? At DXB for example, is it not notable that only two airlines use the largest terminal in the world? Why is it not pertinent to clearly show where each airline is housed, in addition to more contextual and detailed information about specific terminal buildings in prose form elsewhere. -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Listing terminal and destinations are completely different. For instance, if you are looking to book a ticket, looking at a Wikipedia destination table is not going to help you. You book a plane ticket primarily based off price and schedule, simply listing the destinations served by an airline at an airport does not help "guide" a traveler. They do not tell you the schedule, frequency, aircraft, seats available, ect. The list of destinations provides summarized information about the extent of service a particular airport receives (We could list frequencies, aircraft used, gates, schedules, but that would violate WP:NOTTRAVEL). Whereas, a list of which airlines service which terminal(s) is very useful for a traveler and is an essential piece of information that fliers look at travel guides for, such as airport websites, terminal signs, and airport question forums. A paragraph as I described above (notable assignments, airlines owning concourses, ect) would not be helpful to a traveler, but instead provide information about a specific terminal to a researcher/reader of Wikipedia. Stinger20 (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think Andrewgprout is trying to say that, generally, terminal information is not found in secondary sources, but in primary sources - which are not highly preferred at Wikipedia.

"I don't comprehend the argument that terminal information isn't notable and breaches NOTTRAVEL yet every destination is fine." While I personally continue to have issues with the 'Airlines and destinations' tables (I started that previous RfC), the destinations to which a person can fly from an airport are much more notable than terminal information. They also provide an idea of an airline's presence at an airport. (I don't see how terminal information does.) The fact that a person can fly from Heathrow to major cities all over the world as well as to smaller cities in Europe conveys the level of service present at the airport. However, terminal information seems to cross the line. The fact that, say, British Airways' Las Vegas flight departs from T3 while the Bangalore flight leaves from T5 does not sound encyclopedic at all. It sounds like a travel guide directing passengers when they connect through Heathrow.

"Why can't all destinations served by an airport be listed in prose form?" I think you know the answer to this. Listing all the destinations served from Heathrow Airport in prose is not feasible. This works for smaller airports, though (and should be done per MOS:TABLES), such as Belgaum Airport.

"At DXB for example, is it not notable that only two airlines use the largest terminal in the world?" It certainly is. This can be noted elsewhere in the article. (However, merely moving all the terminal information to other parts of the article doesn't make sense, as you noted. Notable cases, such as the fact that British Airways dominates T5, can be included.) — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

You stated "they also provide an idea of an airline's presence at an airport" yet why does that argument not hold up for providing an idea of an airline's presence within individual terminals. Adding a terminal information column adds one character of information to the table in a very neatly, summarised form. Based on what policy does it "cross the line?" As I said earlier, you could quite easily make the case that a list of destinations breaches it (I'm not advocating, just pointing out the hypocrisy). I'm also not advocating prose form for destinations, again pointing out the double standards in this discussion. Railway station articles routinely include which trains serve which platforms, without incident, and I don't see the difference here - if anything, terminal information is more notable. Listing gate numbers and the like is far too specific, I just don't see the argument, based on policy let alone anything else, that denies a terminal column. -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Besides the points raised above, another point is that it is simply not notable. To paraphrase John Marshall, we must never forget that it is an encyclopedia we are expounding. We include railway station information because at most stations it is much harder for the station operator to rearrange service, since they normally need to undertake enormous capital expenditures in the millions or billions of dollars. For example, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority is spending over $800 million to build the Regional Connector tunnel through downtown Los Angeles, which will enable Metro to radically reconfigure its light rail network. In turn, it is because such capital expenditures are so expensive and hence so rare that makes the resulting service changes notable. That is, rail vehicles are literally locked to the rails in a way that planes are not. Airlines routinely move service around between various existing terminals at airports in ways that also impact millions of travelers, but because rearranging service is so easy (setting up their computers at an existing counter and putting up their logo and signs), it rarely gets news coverage and is usually not notable. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

If I take the example of Gatwick Airport where some the removal of terminal information has been implemented, new section has been added to explain terminal relocation - which is fine - but fails to explain what is the new situation and we don't know which airline uses which terminal. And I would like to remind WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD which is applicable here where the information is directly provided by the airport and copied in press article. Wykx (talk) 10:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the points made by Wykx here. Further, Coolcaesar makes a notability argument for train stations but not airports which doesn't stack up. Notability is established by reliable sources not by which topics you deem "expensive" enough to warrant mention - that is a poor argument. A quick Google search turns up numerous terminal changes in RS: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Furthermore, as noted above, primary sources are pertinent in this case. Again, most of the support arguments are based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and interpretations of NOTTRAVEL rather than actual substantive policy -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Point me to a statement based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, we are disagreeing on wether the current format is too suggestive of a travel guide, not wether it makes the destination tables look better. The terminals column was added to the tables when we went from listing destinations by terminal to the current format, they were never added to show the distribution of airlines at an airport. As many users have responded, the current way terminals are listed makes the destination tables look like a travel guide. Without them, the tables do not "guide" passengers but rather depict the extent of airline service at an airport. I am NOT arguing that terminal/concourse information itself violates WP:NOTTRAVEL, as long as its sourced, I see nothing wrong with including it. However, I am arguing that the current format "guides" a potential airline passenger rather than displaying the information in an encyclopedic way. As already done on many airports, the information can be presented in a more informative way that does not look like a travel guide. Examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati/Northern_Kentucky_International_Airport#Main_Terminal_.28Terminal_3.29, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_International_Airport#Current_terminals, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_International_Airport#Terminal_Arrangements, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas/Fort_Worth_International_Airport#Terminals, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathrow_Airport#Terminals, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai_International_Airport#Terminals, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_Capital_International_Airport#Terminals. LAX actually has a great format, which could be followed by many large airports, its nice and simple: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_International_Airport#Terminal_Arrangements. Stinger20 (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree with any of the above, and I very much like the LAX format. But how are any of those formats compliant with GUIDE? It is presenting the same information in a different way. The content is the same - so ergo by your rationale the content breaches GUIDE? -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The content is totally different, these paragraph formats do not "guide" because they are giving information about the terminals (history, size, use, and AIRLINES). Whereas the table does not provide any of this information, but rather just says airline XXX operates in terminal XXX. That seems like a travel guide rather than providing encyclopedic information. In contrast, the list of the destinations served by that airline is encyclopedic because it shows the extent of service from an airport. It is not a guide like the list of terminals because it would not help "guide" a passenger at an airport, rather its more useful to someone wanting to know more about the airport. Stinger20 (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Semantics. Writing "American Airlines flights depart from terminal 1" is no more or less a guide than having 1 next to American Airlines in a table column headed Terminal. The only difference is formatting. -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice you are using a fragment of a sentence, which is very similar to the format of the table:

"American Airlines flights depart from terminal A" or in the format of a table: "American Airlines | ...destinations... | Terminal A"

vs

"American Airlines and its regional affiliate American Eagle have a large presence at Dallas/Fort Worth. The world's largest airline, as of December 9, 2013, operates its largest hub at DFW. The two airlines operate at all five of the airport's terminals.[36] Terminal A, called "Terminal 2E" when the airport was opened, is fully occupied by American Airlines for domestic flights. Prior to the opening of Terminal D, Terminal A operated most of AA's international flights at the airport. During the late 1990s, many American Eagle flights began moving to Terminal B. Before Terminal D was opened, American Eagle flights also used a satellite terminal (named Satellite Terminal A2) near Terminal A due to gate restraints. Passengers were taken to the satellite via shuttle buses from gate A6. Satellite Terminal A2 (Gates A2A–A2N) was abandoned in 2005 when all American Eagle flights were consolidated into Terminals B and D. This terminal is used to house all of American's A321, 737, and 757."

There is a huge difference between the two... Stinger20 (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

That is not a direct comparison. I'm not disputing notability of terminal opening dates, history, etc. I'm asking specifically how writing airline terminal numbers in prose is any more or less NOTAGUIDE than writing it in table form. -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The context matters, just stating the fact that AA flies out of terminal A, wether in a table or sentence suggests a guide. However, when in the context of a paragraph about the terminal, it is no longer a "guide" for a passenger, but information for an encyclopedia. Stinger20 (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Whats new? and Stinger20, I don’t really know how to word/say my response so please bear with me here. I think you both have to change how your thinking of the reason for this discussion. In the first discussion, we reached a sort of consensus that the listing of terminals was kind of bad and we should cite the airlines' route map or destination guide. We started doing that then we ran into edit wars with a few articles which is why this second discussion is going on. The edit wars were happening because the general readers who read these articles weren’t happy with the new standard for airport articles. I feel that the word “general reader” is the keyword that needs to be focused on throughout this discussion and I truly feel that everyone who has contributed this discussion has overlooked these two words. I know that terminals are on the top 10 list of things people look for in an airport article. I feel that taking it away or making it harder for the readers to find is a failure to the purpose that Wikipedia is even in existence. To tell you the truth, its time to stop worrying about it being a travel guide or not. The best option that will make everyone happy might have to break a policy or two for it to be the best choice.
I understand both of your opinions and I can connect to the both of you. What’s my name?, I get the impression that you want long detailed descriptions while Singer20 is fine with slightly shorter descriptions. What's my Name?, the only problem I see with your plan is that most airports don’t really document the history of their terminals, so your plan might get difficult to implant once we get to the medium/small airports.
In my opinion, I really feel that what was there before; having a third column for terminal and adding a fourth for the timetable reference is the best choice for our readers. Thank you, KDTW Flyer (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@KDTW Flyer: Thanks for your input, and I too agree with much of what you have said. To clarify, I am strongly supportive of terminal information - both the terminal column as well as prose sections for history and detailed info about terminals. Obviously in small airports, if there is no verifiable information then there should be no unsourced terminal sections. My points here were that NOTTRAVEL is not a valid rationale for how terminal information is displayed -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

KDTW Flyer, I don't understand your definition of the "general reader." You mean aviation enthusiast IPs like the revert-happy one at Los Angeles International Airport? I don't think the average reader cares about where each airline is located at an airport. As aviation enthusiasts ourselves, I think we need to step back and consider whether the information we are adding is truly encyclopedic. I've given examples above of why I feel terminal information violates WP:NOTTRAVEL. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 02:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I do think the average reader cares. Who are you to determine that? -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Whats new?, Sunnya343 and Stinger20, Thank you for your replies. So about the long time in getting back you, I have been working on this for well over an hour and a half; I am going to get into a few things you all mentioned so once again thank you for bearing with me. First my reasoning for using the statement “general reader”. To me this discussion is is not legal according to Wikipedia standards because theres only like 10 of us in on this discussion. Sunnya343, this my be hard to think but I think the “revert-happy one at Los Angeles International Airport” is the user who we have to give the A+ to, he/she is the one that said “excuse me but we didn’t get a voice in this desition, could we get a voice in this discussion”. This whole second discussion is just as bad as the first, for us to come to a consensus the right way in the way that the wikipedia policy wants us, we have to invite some people in, and these have to be newer users as well. I don’t want to be mean to you Sunnya343, but the way you described these newer editors in your post is a bit rude and uncivil. I care about how an airport article is laid out and I bet the average readers care just as much and want to have a voice. I don't mean to make you feel bad Sunnya343 nor is it my intention, because your not the only person here on Wikipedia with the attitude that newer users have no voice. I strongly believe that there is a huge issue with how older users treat newer ones, but this is material for a different discussion.
What's my Name?, I agree that smaller airports shouldn't have the terminal information, actually as far as I know at most small airports airline float around to different gates depending on traffic, different equipment types, etc. I know that my hometown airport does that.
One last note that I want to leave with you 3, is I'm kind of 50/50 one the whole travel guide argument, I travel a lot and I sometimes read the little binder travel guide thing they have in the room and there's almost always a page on the local airport, mostly the airline(s) that serve the airport. So my point is that if your going to call listing the terminals travel guideish, we might as well call list listing the airlines as a travel guide as well.
Sunnya343, I really am sorry about putting up you in the spotlight, but you were the perfect example for this situation and I've been burning to get this concern with Wikipedia out for a while now. You seem like a nice person from the one or two mini discussions we had in the first discussion.
I hope you all have a nice evening, KDTW Flyer (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

KDTW Flyer, I wasn't thinking that way at all. An IP or a new user can try to have a discussion on the talk page rather than reverting multiple times. If such a user wants to have a voice, they're not helping their case by reverting in such a manner. (And with IPs like the ones at the Los Angeles airport article, having a discussion is quite difficult.) I really don't know how you concluded that I have a low regard for IPs or new editors. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 04:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what much of that has to do with this RfC anyway. In any case, this discussion is ultimately a matter of formatting from my view. No one I see here is suggesting that terminal information is not notable. Editors simply have different views with how some of that information is presented. Those quoting NOTTRAVEL are implying that which airlines use which terminals are not notable for inclusion regardless of how it is presented, as it is a guideline which implies notability not presentation. -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Based on the question, "Should the terminal information column be removed from all airline and destination tables at airport articles?" I am taking a slightly different stance that the terminal information is notable, but needs to be presented in a way that is more concise, encyclopedic, and properly referenced. The current formatting does not fit any of these three categories. I think the WP:NOTTRAVEL is partially a good argument, but both sides can be seen equally, so if you are going to argue for support/oppose, you need to provide more evidence beyond it does/not violate WP:NOTTRAVEL. Stinger20 (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

What could be more concise than one column in an existing table, rather than multiple paragraphs or lengthy lists of airlines in each terminal? Adding references to the column can be done easily. NOTTRAVEL is a notability test, not for formatting! -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I have seen no answer to the fact the text summary doesn't cover all the airlines serving the airport. I would like your feedback on this. Why do you think this information shouldn't be included for small airlines and not for the big ones? Wykx (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Throwing in my 2 cents here. The destination table is something that seems to be taken straight from a travel guide. While I was too busy to provide my opinion in the previous RfC, I'm simply voicing my opinion here. I strongly believe that the history of the terminal, and airlines with a major presence, operating from that terminal are necessary. Small airlines, as well as larger ones with minimal presence at an airport, are, in my opinion, not notable. The terminals section seems like a good place to raise the major players, but only in an encyclopedic way as Stinger20 suggested. Thank you. Garretka (talk) 10:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

In the text for sure but in the table format, since it gives the opportunity to bring the information in a clear and concise manner I don't see the point. Wykx (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The table format spells out every case, as mentioned previously, where the majority are not notable. For example, I don't care if an airline has all their flights at one terminal but the one international flight is processed at another terminal. Terminal designation for every airline, to me, is non notable. If you're looking for terminal information in a clear and concise way, you look at the airport website or a travel guide or even wikivoyage, not Wikipedia. Garretka (talk) 11:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikivoyage focuses on ground transportation, eat, drink, buy, do, which gate is where and advises to check terminal with airline. Airport website are rarely concise. As for notability, it is based on coverage. So Air France or Qatar Airways should be notable in Paris or Doha but not notable in Singapore or Los Angeles? And it's a valuable information to know if the hub of an airline is not completely in one terminal. Wykx (talk) 11:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Airport websites are more often than not concise. If wikivoyage says check terminal with airline, why would Wikipedia go any more in depth? That's exactly my opinion, they fly a few daily trips to those destinations and should not be covered beyond the destination tables. Again, that's what paragraph form is for, spelling out the history and major use of each terminal. I've given my opinion which mirrors the majority of other users, and I stand by my opinion that this information can be found on airport and travel guides, and beyond the encyclopaedic information of major operations, should not be listed. Thanks. Garretka (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

People mention WP:NOTTRAVEL but that policy if one reads it, does not ban travel related information. It only says that such info should be of general interest to the article subject. A list of good restaurants or hotels are of interest to the traveller, but probably has not enough general interest to a city article. The destination table is definitively of interest to understand an airport. The name of each airline is mainly in my opinion needed to assist finding a source (in tables the source can be located in each listed article). Which terminal each one use is probably of doubtful notability.--BIL (talk) 11:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Concur with BIL. Also, to respond to User:Whats new?'s point, it sounds like he or she probably does not fly that often. As any experienced flyer knows, large airlines like to shift operations between different terminals at major hubs in ways that are not covered by reliable sources, let alone the airlines' own Web sites. For example, United Airlines has an annoying tendency to quietly move domestic flights around at SFO, such as when it was flying certain domestic flights (e.g., SFO-IAD) out of the International Terminal last year, instead of Terminal 3. There was also the time United moved some domestic flights to Terminal 1 back in 2012. Neither move was publicized by United anywhere on its Web site or covered by reliable sources. The 2012 move was covered only by some aviation blogs. Similarly, as I noted above, American Airlines moved the bus terminal for the Eagle's Nest remote terminal from Terminal 6 to Terminal 5, but that move did not gain news coverage. The point is that there are many moves between terminals for which no reliable sources exist under WP:RS.

Destination tables also have their own issues, but they are at least tolerable under Wikipedia core policies because they can always be verified from many airlines' official timetables (for the airlines that still publish them) or the OAG database (by anyone with a subscription). In contrast, when an airline has done a stealth move of flights between terminals at a hub with no mention on the Web sites of the airline or airport, and there hasn't been any coverage apart from some squawking on some aviation blogs, then an edit to the airport's article to reflect that move (i.e., by a passenger who just experienced it) would be first publication of original research in violation of WP:NOR. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Well its so nice of you to assume. There are certainly times when airlines may use a different terminal for operational reasons, whether planned or last minute. I'm not suggesting including every mention of every case, just retaining information about which airline use which terminal(s) predominantly for flights. If AA does a charter flight we don't list it in the table, so neither would we list a temporary terminal change. The information can be reliably sourced from secondary sources or primary (airports, airlines, airline groups). I found plenty of sources about the AA remote terminal moves you mentioned for example. In any event, and I say this again: this RfC is for WHERE the information should be displayed (in the table or not) and, for most supporters of the removal of this column, your rationale is NOTTRAVEL which is a notability argument and it therefore means you are arguing ALL airline/terminal information should be removed from the article. If you are saying including Terminal 1 in a table is a guide, then so is writing "Terminal 1 houses American Airlines and British Airways" in prose form. If it can be included and sourced there, why can it not be included and sourced in the table? -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I think notability plays a huge part in this in addition to WP:NOTTRAVEL. For instance, at CDG, its relatively unimportant that all Delta flights operate out of Terminal 2E, however, its much more notable and useful for a reader to say all SkyTeam airlines operate out of Terminal 2E&F. Listing all the terminals (and keeping up with all the changes Coolcaesar mentioned) is not encyclopedic, that is besides the problems with WP:NOTTRAVEL that have already been pointed out. Stinger20 (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

That's all well and good when terminal arrangements are neat and tidy - what about when they are not? What happens when 3 SkyTeam airlines use terminal 1 and 3 others use terminal 2. What about unaligned airlines - do they get listed individually or get lumped in as "some unaligned airlines?" What about when one airline uses 3 terminals? Why are airline alliance terminal arrangements notable but individual airline arrangements are not? What makes an alliance more notable in your view? How about alliances below the 'big 3' - codesharing arrangements, common lounge facilities, etc also play a big part in who's in which terminal - are they notable enough to mention? It seems you're drawing an arbitrary line in the sand there. -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Stinger20: Actually no there are five exceptions in Charles-de-Gaulle Airport although these airlines are members of Skyteam: Aeroflot, Saudia and Kenya Airways are from 2C, Czech Airlines from 2D because it is Central Europe out of Schengen... and even Air France from 2G for smaller aircrafts. So easy to check those exceptions with the table... Wykx (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Acually that's a great example of non-notable terminal arrangements. I highly doubt most readers know or care that these Airlines are part of SkyTeam and in the context of CDG, they are not notable compared to Delta or Air France who have hubs at the airport. What is more important and notable is that most SkyTeam members are concentrated in Terminals 2E&F to make connections/codesharing easier. I see no encyclopedic value in listing all these exceptions (which is what the terminal column does) other than providing a traveler with a guide for what terminal their flight will depart from WP:NOTTRAVEL. Even the Air France exception does not provide any useful/encyclopedic information other than assisting a traveler. Stinger20 (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

If terminals are not notable for an airport, what is notable?? In many of the articles, terminal descriptions and information are covering half of the article! Wykx (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The terminal descriptions are the notable part! Not the listing of every terminal assignment, which is only useful for travelers! Stinger20 (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

"Only useful for traveler" is WP:OR. At the contrary we have demonstrated that there is interest from several contributors and readers to reinstate terminal information. Wykx (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Wykx, terminal arrangements are notable and Stinger you are saying that some airlines are worthy of inclusion and some aren't. On what basis? As I said earlier, what about unaligned airlines - do they get listed individually or get lumped in as "some unaligned airlines?" What about when one airline uses 3 terminals? Why are airline alliance terminal arrangements notable but individual airline arrangements are not? What makes an alliance more notable in your view? How about alliances below the 'big 3' - codesharing arrangements, common lounge facilities, etc also play a big part in who's in which terminal - are they notable enough to mention? It seems you're drawing an arbitrary line in the sand there. -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

perhaps the inclusionists can explain the encyclopedic value of edits such as this [[7]] and make a sensible case as to why this does not contravene WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTGUIDE because I can't see it _ I know it is true it is just not encyclopaedic. Anytime you are forcing people to be absolutely accurate to the minutest detail is when it has gone way past being an encyclopedia. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean we shouldn't have updated information? I would have understood your point if the information was constantly wrong and never updated. If it is updated, it's not "forced" Wykx (talk) 10:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid that does not really answer the question I posed.Andrewgprout (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

A regularily scheduled flight began operating from terminal C, it was added to the table. That particular airline flies out of two terminals at that airport. Why is that any more or less notable than the destinations themselves? -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

So how does that add to any understanding of the subject? which was my question which is still not answered - the only use for such a bit of information is as a "GUIDE". There is no requirement in Wikipedia to be comprehensive - just because something "is" does not make it encyclopaedic. "How is this different than the destinations themselves" - well - quite possibly not much but that is not the question being asked by this rfc.Andrewgprout (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

As has previously been explained, it goes to how airlines are grouped or arranged at particular terminals, particularily relevent in terms of codesharing and alliances, as well as the overall structure of the airport (domestic and international flights seperated, one terminal per alliance, etc). In any case, terminal arrangements are notable where sources exist, and for most major airports they do. You mention that individual destinations aren't particularily different - then why have the table at all - perhaps the RfC should be changed to removing the entire table. -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, it appears that most editors who have contributed to this RfC - at least in the survey - identify that information as not notable. Also, if you scroll up a bit, you will find a long RfC on that very subject. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 03:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't dispute where majority lies to date, I just dispute the reasons given and the double standards -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Here is a question for users against removing concourse/terminal information, what encyclopedic value does the terminal/concourse information serve a reader on an airport page? I am having trouble seeing the current setup as anything other than useful for a traveler, hence it is content for a travel guide, not an encyclopedia (what WP:NOTTRAVEL is pointing to). Here is a quote by Whats new? that attempts to answer this question, "it goes to how airlines are grouped or arranged at particular terminals, particularily relevent in terms of codesharing and alliances, as well as the overall structure of the airport (domestic and international flights seperated, one terminal per alliance, etc). In any case, terminal arrangements are notable where sources exist." If airlines are grouped according to codeshares/alliances, is that not something that can be put in a properly sourced paragraph? Again with the mention of "overall structure of an airport", that can be summarized in a sentence, detailing the international and domestic concourses/terminals. You just provided an example of the important parts of terminal/concourse information. That is not the same thing as the unencyclopedic listing of every concourse assignment that would only be useful for a traveler. In comparison, I can easily answer this question for the destinations, they help show the extent of service an airport has and are useless to a traveler. We have already held numerous discussions about the notability of the destinations and every time there is strong support for keeping them, please keep this RFC focused to only the terminal/concourse information. Stinger20 (talk) 06:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The summary doesn't give exceptions and the full details on terminal assignment of all the airlines serving the airport. Wykx (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I am asking what the significance of these "exceptions and full details on terminal assignments" are to the airport article. This information seems like its more of a travel guide than encyclopedic information about the airport. Stinger20 (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

As previously mentioned, the changes of terminal assignments are i) covered by news articles and ii) we have reliable airport pages sources. This information is useful from several perspectives: airport, airline, traveller. "Encyclopedia articles focus on factual information concerning the subject for which the article is named". Terminal assignments are factual information concerning airports. Wykx (talk) 09:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

"...they help show the extent of service an airport has and are useless to a traveler" for every destination served, yet the same doesn't apply for the extent of service at a terminal and aren't useless to a traveller? Circle that square. Airport destinations are "useless to a traveler" are they? Sorry, but if the NOTTRAVEL argument applies to the terminal information then I continue to fail to see how every destination served isn't, and I look forward to putting that forward at a future RfC on destination information. If terminal information can be nearly summarised in prose form, why can't destinations as well? And if every airline terminal arrangement isn't notable, why is every tiny airport served once a week, or destinations served seasonally for a month or two of the year, or even charter destinations which operate essentially on demand only, notable enough to be included in a table? Double standards litter this NOTTRAVEL argument -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

For me, the fundamental problems with terminal information are notability (as amply explained above) and WP:RS. Many of the sources that would have to be relied upon to substantiate terminal locations for airlines are of questionable reliability under WP:RS because they are self-published sources, primary sources, and the like, and so either we let those terminal columns go unsourced, or we tolerate really sloppy sourcing. For example, both United and SFO failed to update their Web sites to reflect the important terminal changes that I mentioned above (despite the confusion and distress they caused to many travelers), which brings the reliability of both of their Web sites into question. In contrast, the initiation and termination of an entire route is a much more notable event (because of the paperwork and expense involved) that usually draws coverage from secondary news media sources and is also updated regularly in reliable secondary sources like OAG. After all, if OAG ceases to be accurate, they won't have paying subscribers for very long. --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I've already demonstrated sources exist for terminal changes - primary and secondary - earlier in this discussion. If there isn't a reliable source for a particular terminal change, then I have no problem omitting it in that circumstance. -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

While I do not see the terminal information as currently presented as noteworthy or encyclopedic, I could be persuaded the other way if we started sourcing the terminal information with sources, and continued to do the same for the routes. The biggest point I see is that all the documentation is not "set-in-stone", so while I feel its not encyclopedic, I am not sure the argument can hold up. We also run into the problem we discussed on removing the destinations, what exactly is notable/non-notable, and how do we distinguish between the two. I think its clear for the destinations that we should have them all, as long as they are referenced. Do any of the Support Removal group feel accurate sources would increase the notability of terminal assignments? I have had a lot of trouble finding sources for many airports terminals/concourses, so I am concerned about consistency across airport articles as well. I also included an idea for a new Terminals and Airlines table, with the header column listing the terminals rather than airlines, hoping to show the layout of an airport vs a travel guide where the airlines would be listed in the header column. Here are some proposed formats: User:Stinger20/sandbox, feel free to edit it if you would like, just duplicate the table and insert it below the original. Stinger20 (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Responding again to Whats new?, it's not the existence of such sources that is the issue, it is the quality of sources and the extent to which reliable sources actually publish articles covering changes of terminal assignments in a timely fashion. It makes no sense to assume the existence of such sources for the majority of airport terminal assignments. Whats new?'s logic, extrapolated over time to its logical conclusion, would lead to airport articles being populated with tables full of long out-of-date terminal information because (1) airport and airline Web sites are notorious for lagging behind service changes and (2) the news media is incapable of documenting such changes in a timely and accurate manner. The alternative would be to throw out WP:NOR, and that is a non-negotiable policy of the WP project. It appears that Whats new? is unaware of the ongoing crisis in journalism for the last 20 years, the very reason for why many humanities majors, myself included, chose to pursue careers in law or other more lucrative professions rather than journalism.

For example, neither American Airlines nor LAX expressly explains anywhere on their regular Web sites in plain English the embarrassing truth that American Eagle flights are served by a hidden remote terminal (the Eagle's Nest) located east of terminal 8 (which means passengers need to anticipate a long bus ride to/from terminal 5 to that location). The only mentions of that remote terminal on the LAX Web site appear to be buried in passing mentions in press releases and newsletters as part of various minor news items, but not as part of stand-alone articles precisely explaining what that terminal is or warning of the severe inconvenience that it inflicts on travelers. And the news media is too busy covering political scandals, car chases, and police shootings to cover that story. As they say in journalism, if it bleeds, it leads. No self-respecting journalist is going to waste their time or their editor's time writing that story, because it's not the story that will lead to a Pulitzer Prize with their name on it. Yes, the Eagle Nest and the sheer craziness of flying through it are documented elsewhere on the Web, but only in airport/airline reviews and aviation blogs of questionable quality which are less likely to qualify under WP:RS. --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Well obviously you didn't bother to check for RS regarding your example. I found several articles with a 5 minute g search: [8] [9] [10]. Don't let your apparent disdain let you assume things. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I would also consider WP:NOTNEWS with regards to the terminal changes. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 16:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand your point regarding WP:NOTNEWS. A terminal change is neither original reporting, nor emphasized breaking news. Wykx (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I mean that all these little terminal changes, e.g. American Airlines moves from Terminal 1 to Terminal 2, are not notable. "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 23:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Why would temporary destinations, such as charter or seasonal flights, not fall in the same category? -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that's a different discussion. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

How so? The rationale for one should hold for the other -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Is there a final consensus on whether or not we should keep the terminals/concourse column and replace them with the references with the airline's timetable???? 97.85.118.142 (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

---

With 14 Support Removal and 3 Oppose Removal, there is an overwhelming majority in favor of removing the terminal information. We seem to be repeating the same points, the overall interpretation seems to be that most people seem to agree that the listing of terminal information is not encyclopedic in its current format, which is the purpose of this discussion. I would argue that we have made, according to Consensus decision-making, a "not-perfect" consensus, but one that would remove concourse information from just the tables as we discussed. I will submit a request for closure so an administrator can look over the discussion in a neutral point-of-view and decide if we have reached a consensus to remove the concourse information. Stinger20 (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Which city to be listed for airport shared by more than one?

Should the nearest city be listed or the biggest one size and population wise or the most popular one even if small and far? as in case of East Midlands region, Derby is closest but Leicester is biggest population wise and the farthest, Nottingham is in between with with a sligghtly lowr population than Leicester, which of the three is more popular a destination? 139.190.175.128 (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Typically the nearest city, no matter size, should be listed as the location. You can mention in the intro paragraph that the airport serves the larger city in the area. For instance, in the case of CVG, it is located in Hebron, Kentucky, however, it serves Cincinnati, Ohio. Stinger20 (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

In the future, I think a template could be created for the talk pages of airport articles with commercial service that would provide a consensus of what it should be called in destination tables. Discussion about the city name would then be on the talk page of the airport article, with the template updated based on consensus. The template could provide a central notification page that could be watched to alert project members to the discussion with a parameter |under_discussion= that would be changed when there is ongoing discussion about the city name. The template would have a minimum four parameters:

• |name= for the name of the airport in destination tables,
• |under_discussion= could be set to yes if name is under discussion (explained earlier),
• |discussion_link= would be a link to the archived discussion(s) about the name (it should support multiple discussions, eg. |discussion_link1=, |discussion_link2=, etc.),
• and |note= for a brief explanation about the consensus (if necessary). AHeneen (talk) 03:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Airline websites no acceptable source for route changes?

Fellow editors, please have a look at London City Airport where User David.moreno72 keeps removing sourced content regarding the ending of several routes stating that airline website booking sites are no acceptable source and violate WP:ELNO and WP:REFSPAM. He also seems to not accept secondary sources and keeps referring to WP:ELNO as he removed some of these as well. As the use of these sources is common practice I would like to have some opinions on this. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.171.177.145 (talk) 12:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Seasonal flights

I'm having a disagreement with an editor about seasonal flights. The another editor is saying that Eurowings flights from Glasgow Airport to Düsseldorf Airport are seasonal as they stop for one week in January. I know that it is sometimes unclear whether a route is seasonal or not but listing it as seasonal when it stops for one week only is crazy in my opinion. It would want to be stopped for 3-4 weeks at a minimum to be considered seasonal. Any input appreciated, thanks, VG31 12:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm on the other side of this argument. See the flights are 4x weekly from end of October through to just after new year 2018. The flights then Stop before starting up again at 2x weekly over a week later. The difference in weekly frequency here suggests seasonality whereas if the flights were 4x weekly the whole time with only a short break, then it would be less suspicious. However the 2x frequency suggests the airline is re-introducing the flights after the break - therefore seasonal. I strongly believe this is seasonal as the airline clearly doesn't have sufficient passenger demand for January and that explains the no ops in the middle of January and the re-introduction at 2x weekly. Futurepilot1999 17:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

It's very minor details like this that make me question the encyclopaedic value of a one week break being declared as seasonal. In my opinion, a one week break is not enough to declare the service as seasonal. Garretka (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, a month without any flights might be different but one week is not notable. The flights changing in frequency doesn't matter, they're still not seasonal. VG31 17:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb is that a route must operate at least once in every month of the year to be declared "year-round", otherwise its seasonal. In this case, the route is clearly year round. Stinger20 (talk) 04:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

In this case I would definitely agree that a service suspension of a week or so out of a whole year does not make a service seasonal. Unofficially (in that it isn't written exactly like this at WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT) most of us have been following the policy that provided the airline operates the route every month of the year, the service is not regarded as seasonal in the Airlines and destinations tables. However this itself is open to some disparity - an airline for example 'suspending' a service from 30 November to 1 January (1 month of no operation) would have the route listed as seasonal (because there are no flights in December), while an airline suspending a route from 2 December to 30 January (2 months of no operation) would have the route listed as year-round as there is at least one flight operated in each calendar month of the year. That doesn't seem an accurate / fair representation. SempreVolando (talk) 07:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to start removing unreferenced charter flights, this is not on, anyone can add anything they like to their favourite airport to boost its image, in any case charters are unreliable, they are mostly never referenced and even if so the information is no guarentee wether the service is continuing or ended with just a handful of flights for a few weeks or months at the most a full season.139.190.175.128 (talk) 11:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Try to find if the charter is still running before removing it. At least check the airport's website as (smaller airports in particular) often have a timetable for the charter flights or links to the travel agents where you can look up the flights. Thanks, VG31 17:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm having a similar problem on the Pittsburgh International Airport page with a particular IP user as well. United operates a route between PIT and SFO that operates year round except for January and February most likely because of low demand. PIT's website lists this flight as year round on their route map and so that is how it's been listed on the page. However, this user insists that it is seasonal due to the brief hiatus but can't provide a valid source to verify their reasoning. Rather than continuing an edit war, I'm coming here. Let me know anyone's thoughts on this issue. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Important note: United's schedule currently shows the flight as operating year-round, but the IP user is saying that United will remove the flight from its schedule later on in the year, without providing any definitive proof. While there was a two-month hiatus in the service earlier this year, after the schedule initially showed flights operating during this off-period, that to me isn't a good enough reason. Just because it happened in the past, there's no guarantee it'll happen in the future. JamesRenard (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Lufthansa changes

Some Lufthansa flights are switching from CityLine to mainline (and vice versa) from 28/29 October but it has been creating a whole lot of mess and people keep saying that it is 7 months away from mentioning this change right now. Should we mention this as new or ending service? TravelLover37 (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I really don't think the average reader cares if service is operated by mainline or cityline. That said, how is this situation any different than an Air Canada mainline flight switching to a rouge flight, where the service "ends and begins". On the topic of being "too far out", I would suggest that Vibhss stops reverting these edits. These are sourced edits and what you are doing is considered vandalism. Garretka (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I am absolutely certain the average reader is very bemused and confused by such pedantic detail and it should be avoided at all costs. The problem I believe is with the inclusion of the ' operated by' entries. It is my belief that these only cause confusion, are often hard to substantiate and often change randomly. If the big words on the plane say Lufthansa then just write Lufthansa. Anything more than that gets into trouble with NOTTRAVEL, being a guide and basically being a fan site for the pedantic among us. Andrewgprout (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTTRAVEL doesn't apply here. That sort of information is not travel information. Maybe the "average reader" does not care what airline operates the flights but it is still encyclopedic information that should be included. VG31 21:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

of course it is travel information? What else can it be. And please explain how and why you think such detail adds anything to a readers understanding of the airport article.Andrewgprout (talk) 05:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

If it were travel information it would be something that would be of relevance to your average airline passenger. I'm sure most flyers don't care what airline operates their flight. This information is not of interest to most people but those who do read this section of Wikipedia airport articles most likely are interested! Just because the majority of the public aren't interested in certain information doesn't mean it shouldn't be included. This information is of benefit to many people. VG31 20:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Since the aircraft seats are sold by "Lufthansa" in both cases, the distinction is largely irrelevant for travelers and therefore NOTTRAVEL doesn't apply. That said, I am neutral about the importance of noting the operator of the flight. IMO, it's not very important, but not so irrelevant that it is worth the effort to debate the issue or purge it from all articles. AHeneen (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It is actually quite important that the operating airline is included. For many airlines, particularly if a regional airline operates some flights, there is a big difference in aircraft used and often the branding. VG31 18:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Quite important for who? Please remember that Wikipedia is not a fan site it is an encyclopaedia.Andrewgprout (talk) 06:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Flights not starting on the established start date

Back in December last year, OneJet announced that they would start flights between Pittsburgh and Albany on March 22, 2017. The date has passed, and the flights aren't operating yet. In fact, they can't even be booked and I've not been able to find a new start date anywhere. What would the consensus be on this issue? Should the destination either be removed from the table until a new start date is established, be kept on the table with a note, or something else? JamesRenard (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

If no reference can be found to prove the route will be starting it should definitely be removed. It's not all that uncommon for an airline to announce a route and then cancel it before it starts, often with little publicity. VG31 20:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

That's what I thought, I'd initially removed Albany as a destination from the Pittsburgh International Airport page (and vice versa) but someone else just added it right back again. JamesRenard (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

IP removing refs

Please be on the lookout for a socking IP removing www.routesonline.com references from airpot articles.

Example: [11]

Found so far:

• 223.206.247.109 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 223.206.250.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 171.4.106.128 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Many thanks,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked 223.206.240.0/20, and 171.4.106.128 for 72 hours for block evasion. If more IPs pop up, let me know. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Here is a list of all the articles edited by the IPs in case you wish to dump them into your raw watchlist (no bullets):

Beijing Capital International Airport Changsha Huanghua International Airport Da Nang International Airport Daegu International Airport Fuzhou Changle International Airport Jomo Kenyatta International Airport Kuala Lumpur International Airport Kunming Changshui International Airport Muscat International Airport Naha Airport Nanjing Lukou International Airport New Chitose Airport Phnom Penh International Airport Siem Reap International Airport Soekarno–Hatta International Airport Sydney Airport Tan Son Nhat International Airport

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak and Oshwah: Hello there both. I see no issues with the removal in the diff above. The consensus (whether controversial) is not to have citations for current destinations, as they are only required for the start of new services and for the termination of current ones.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, in most cases references aren't needed for current routes as it's quite easy to check if a route is still running by looking at the airlines' timetables or booking engines. References should be kept for charter and cargo routes however as it can be difficult to verify if they are still running. Thanks, VG31 13:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

If you look further up the page there is a consensus for "Option 3: Keep the tables, but something should be done with regards to references and complying with WP:VERIFY." Which would indicate that routes do need references. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

There is consensus for Option 3, but there is no consensus on how to deal with the references.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

There was only a WP:LOCALCONCENSUS. Removing them is not dealing with them. As I understood it dealing with them meant how to go about putting the references in the article. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Another issue is that when others dispute the removals and revert, and communicate with that editor asking them to stop, then that editor ought to stop. The IP ignores all talk posts and hops to another IP. That is a concern. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

You cannot make a consensus against WP:V the verifiability core principle. Removing references that (however badly) support the fact being presented is absolutely 100% against this principle. Just because the facts can be easily verified (which is debatable - in fact for much of these details there is no real reliable secondary source available) has never meant that it is correct to delete such a reference. Nowhere else on Wikipedia is such a practice tolerated. Andrewgprout (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I just thought to double check and see exactly what the local consensus actually is. From Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content#Body item #10 says "For current destinations, the implicit reference is the airline's published timetable. If the flight is in the timetable and not challenged, an explicit reference is not normally included." So in this case the destinations have been challenged and a reference is required. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

This once again highlights the fact that gaining consensus on the inclusion of references for all the destinations in airport articles is mandatory. Many people oppose to this, which in my opinion is against the verifiability policy.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

More

• 223.206.250.230 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) ...and the talk post

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• 49.48.146.160 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (removing other refs too, no edit summaries)

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• 223.206.232.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• 223.207.37.114 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 223.206.247.109 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 223.206.246.213 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• 223.206.234.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Please inspect edits. Some changes may be good. Revert what you like.)

Murph9000 (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• 114.109.71.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) IP geolocates to Thailand, just like all of the other IP's; editor is continuing to remove valid citations w/o any explanation whatsoever.

103.11.67.171 (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment from Murph9000

Murph9000 wrote:

"...Hi Anna, I noticed your message on User talk:223.206.250.230. You may well have already spotted this, but it's clearly someone who hops around many different 223.206.* IPs, so actually engaging them in conversation may well be problematic. Lack of edit summaries and removal of references is a major theme. I've reverted more than a few of them. I can't remember for sure, but I may well have escalated to 4im warnings and/or uw-multipleIPs after the first few cases. To the best of my knowledge, we've been unable to get any talk out of them, hence the escalation from gentle to harsh warnings. It's quite possible that there may have been some AIV reports and blocks as well. I can't tell for sure if there's malice or similar behind any of it (but without any active communication from them to aid in that analysis, the behaviour is problematic and block-worthy, in my opinion). Just some context/info for you, in case you're late to the party on this one..."

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Murph9000. Good points. Yes, his IP hopping makes engaging him a problem. When I see him edit, I quickly post at his IP talk in the hopes that he will still use it for the new few minutes and see the message. I will keep a prepared text ready for the next occasion.

I've been posting with personal messages because warnings don't work and in the hopes that he will speak and we can find out what's going on. Maybe he works for a competing website. Maybe he's bananas. Who knows.

Blocks seem pointless because he just hops IPs. This may come down to whack-a-mole until he gets the point.

Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Anna, thanks for copying my comment here, I was unaware of the existing discussion. Yes, the attempt to talk instead of big red shouty templates approach is a quite valid alternative when the templates have failed to generate a response. If nothing else works, it might be possible to use an edit filter, something like the following pseudocode: if ((IPuser in 223.206.0.0/16 || other known ranges) && articleName contains "Airport" && removed(ref) (or all articles and ref removal with the URLs we have been seeing). I didn't use the real edit filter syntax or variables there, to save me dusting off the documentation. That would be a little more surgical than big range blocks. The IP hopping may well not be deliberate, as the edits are tagged "mobile", so the user may well automatically get a new IP every time they connect to mobile data or as they move between cells. One other consideration is that these edits are coming from Thailand, so there may be a language barrier involved (but they presumably understand some/enough English to target our articles). Murph9000 (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Murph9000. Edit filter, eh? Maybe a good plan. Let's ping dear Samwalton9, my go-to-guy for edit filters. So, Sam, what do you think? Is this serious enough? Should we whack the moles a while longer before considering this? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Murph's pseudocode is certainly reasonable for an edit filter, though I'd be concerned about the seemingly inconclusive discussion above regarding whether these edits are desirable or not. Sam Walton (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Samwalton9. What I am reading above, and now below, indicates that it is pretty conclusive that there is, and will be, no consensus for removal of this source. The IPs removals are therefore not appropriate, against warnings, and ought to be stopped. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Decision about removing www.routesonline.com

Can we get consensus? If the community wishes this website removed from articles, then that would de facto turn this IP into a constructive editor. :) Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Consensus was reached some time ago on using routesonline as a source. I don't see why it should be removed.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the above. There's no reason for it not to be accepted as a source. VG31 15:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, you mean removing routesonline as a source AFTER the route has already started? It's a perfectly valid source that proves accurate with start dates, but the issue I have with keeping them after the route has started is that it doesn't demonstrate the route is actually running. Garretka (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

What I am reading above indicates that a sudden consensus for removal of this source is very unlikely. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Honolulu International Airport

Some IPs have been changing the name of the airport from Honolulu International Airport to Daniel K. Inouye International Airport. I don't see any mention that the airport has been renamed. I came across to some sources stating that this name change is not confirmed or official yet. Airport website is still reflecting the airport name as Honolulu International Airport". Can anyone find a source that this name change is confirmed or official? 97.85.118.142 (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The FAA chart the ip user is, in my opinion, not enough of a source to warrant the name change until another reliable source becomes apparent. Garretka (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Terminal information in airline and destination tables

This has just come to my attention. There is fundamentally NO argument to ever remove information from Wikipedia. Only add information, or improve information. If some of you feel the information "shouldn't be here," why would it matter? Who is it bothering? The information is not adding clutter, or subtracting from the overall value of the page. There is no consistent source for airline terminal information anywhere else. This was the only place. I am going to bring an army of people to lobby this to be reversed, and that terminal information in airline and destination tables be put back. (173.55.241.240 (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC))

Well, obviously you have not looked at other discussions very closely, a strong consensus was reached that they should be removed above. I am for including this information in other ways, I don't think its unencylocpedic by nature, just in the way is was presented (Also, sourcing was horrendous). Stinger20 (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Not so strong... Wykx (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

See IND's airport page, I think this a much better way to present the terminal information, though I would suggest listing it by Concourse/Temrinal in the header column and then listing the airlines in that terminal in the second column: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indianapolis_International_Airport#IND_Concourse_Information. Stinger20 (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I must say I do not like that at all. That still, in my opinion, violates WP:NOTTRAVEL. Terminal layouts do not belong on Wikipedia. I would also like to take this chance to say I am against adding the searchable timetables as this is readily available information and is borderline advertisement. Garretka (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I concur with Garretka. Garretka, what are you referring to when you say "searchable timetables"? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 02:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I mean the third column being replaced with refs. While I support the idea of referencing I don't this that is the approach that should be taken. Garretka (talk) 02:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Garretka I agree that the third column idea for referencing is problematic, I have until now held off saying so as I in no way want to discourage people adding appropriate references to information in Wikipedia. I do not see why referencing for these tables cannot work like the whole of the rest of Wikipedia works, 1. someone adds a fact, if everybody agrees it is a "cool" fact nothing happens 2. if the fact needs to be referenced so be it - it is referenced in the best way possible or the fact deleted, and 3. references are only deleted when the fact that it is supporting is deleted - mostly because you have no idea why the reference was added in the first place. Thus my view on referencing is that (if we assume that the destination tables are the best way to encyclopaedically present destination information on airport pages - which for the moment I am doing) the status quo is only slightly broken. It is broken only in that mostly IP editors misinterpret the guidance of WP:AIRPORTS as trumping the core policies of Wikipedia and continue to wholesale remove valid references to facts, normally without explaination, but sometimes with comments like "running routes do not need references" or even "its messy and confuses me" which is simply not what WP:AIRPORTS says and is against WP:V and all sorts of other core policies. I note your comment above about many references being for start dates and do not support the continuation or even the actual commencement of any said route - in my view such references are often very very weak, but they are often the only WP:SECONDARY reference available, but despite this weakness they are still valid in that they by definition indicate some level of confidence that the route is (or maybe was) a valid route and such references should only be deleted with caution and always with an explaination. Andrewgprout (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I would like to respectfully request that the terminal information be restored. I have been using that for YEARS and don't understand for the life of me why Wikipedia would actively remove information that is useful. Aviation professionals constantly keep the information up to date and it has just always been a wonderful resource. I have yet to read one cogent explanation for why it was actively removed. Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.65.164.192 (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I was in favor of keeping this information. Basically most of the contributors claimed or supported that is was against WP:NOTTRAVEL, considering that this information is ONLY useful for travellers (which I persist to consider it is untrue). Since then we have every week other readers who come back to dispute the result of the discussion, which demonstrates in my opinion that the removal was not appropriate. Wykx (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Delta hub at Heathrow

Recently, Delta lists LHR as a hub/key market. But it keeps getting removed from the infobox. Any suggestions on this matter. 107.77.235.201 (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

The airport has recently been listed as a hub at SkyTeam with a source. I suggest to add the very same source to prevent further removals.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

It keeps getting removed because it is not a hub by Wikipedia guidelines of what a hub is. 107.77.235.201 (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

The source provided was from Delta itself as well. 107.77.235.201 (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)