This is an archive of past discussions about Heathrow Airport. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Lee M, you added that some have claimed that Heathrow Express is disproportionally more expensive that the tube. Who claims this? 15 minutes on HE is £13 (£15 if bought on train). The tube is £3.70 to zone 1 for about 45 minutes (or more). This proportionality seems to hold up pretty well (i.e. three times as quick means three times the price). I wonder if your addition is attempt to be NPOV where there isn't an NPOV problem. Pete (who is thinking that the instant Heathrow to City tele-transporters are going to be damn expensive)!
Heath Row - named after...
An anon added "Original name was in fact Heath Row.". I removed this as I can't verify it. I added instead that it might have been named after the hamlet Heath Row, but this doesn't mean it was ever called Heath Row. Angela 04:02, Sep 21, 2003 (UTC)
I think the current wording which reads like "well it was called it because of this... or this... we don't know really" is too vague. I will see if I can pin it down further.Pete 11:11, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I removed the very odd suggestion that the airport might have been named after some guy called Heath (a not uncommon name). The link given at the end of this para itself states "The statement in Londoner's Diary claiming that Heathrow Airport is named after Judge John Heath is incorrect. Heathrow Airport derives its name from a hamlet called Heath Row, which was obliterated during the construction of the airport. The hamlet of Heath Row was on the western part of Hounslow Heath and lay along a road that ran in a southerly direction from near the Magpies Inn on the bath Road at Sipson in the Parish of Harmondsworth. The name "Heath Row" can be found on maps and documents going back several hundred years, long before Judge Heath was born." Shantavira 08:16, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The original airfield dating from the 1930s (used by Fairey) was named the 'Great West Road Aerodrome'. I seem to recall that for quite a while after becoming London's main airport it was referred to simply as 'London Airport'; the 'Heathrow' nomenclature not re-emerging into common usage until the 1970s with (I assume) the growth in prominence of Gatwick. I have been attempting on and off to find a more exact date (eg when road signs changed?) but this is proving surprisingly difficult.
Ranking?
Anyone aware of heathrow's ranking in the world? It is the worst airport i've ever experienced.
- My goodness, You can't have been anywhere in Eastern Europe could you? I've always had positive experience and think it has more facilities than most due to size.
- Try Copenhagen, I've transited through it twice, the first time they sent my suitcase to Munich instead of Heathrow, the second time their ground staff forgot to close the aircraft properly and we promptly returned twenty minutes later. JonEastham23:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Let me think - worse airports from a passenger experience viewpoint? All US airports I've been to (Boston, Philly, Raleigh/Durham, LAX). Both German airports I've been to (Dusseldorf & Nurmberg). Mumbai. Madrid. And many more; at least the terminals at LHR give you plenty of things to do post-security, unlike the afore mentioned.
Suggest removal of discussion on regulation of BAA landing charges. The relate to other UK airports besides Heathrow
The often-parroted description of Heathrow as the "world's busiest international airport" is completely misleading. When the average person thinks of a busy airport they either think of the number of people going through it, (in which case Atlanta takes this prize), or the number of planes taking off and landing there, (again, Atlanta). Since Atlanta is also an International Airport, the only way in which Heathrow is a record breaker is the fact that it simply has the most people having to go through customs. Let's congratulate the fine Immigration Officers at Heathrow, and say that Heathrow has the "World's busiest immigration hall", but to claim that the airport itself is the busiest isn't even remotely true.
Heathrow in the news
As Terminal 3 is closed because of recent events, could there be a "newsflash" note at the top of the page - or a link to the relevant website. (Ditto with other pages where relevant - on a here today gone tomorrow basis.)
Destinations
How about the places that you can fly to from Heathrow get ordered by name or maybe by region instead of by airline? Or maybe we could have both lists. Crobzub
Since when does Virgin Atlantic fly from Heathrow to Lyon? Should I just remove it? FlyerBoy
It's a codeshare flight with Air France klnilsson2
Yeah I know that photo really sucks. Yeah I agree - one of the new control tower or T5 would be awesome. Deano12:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Deano, don't be so rude about my control tower pic. If you knew the thousands of hours I've spent adding pics on WP you wouldn't write childish words like "really sucks". Please engage brain before typing. - Adrian Pingstone19:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
It's a nice picture, but I agree that it doesn't really sum up Heathrow as a whole; most of the airport is ultramodern steel and glass, and one gets the impression that it is a 60s style brick building. If an alternative becomes available which shows the airport more as whole, I suggest it is used. --Taskforce22:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
“In terms of the annual number of statistics, Heathrow Airport is the busiest airport in the known world compared to other airports ... The airport itself covers an overall area and you only need to be driven right round it four or five times, to realise that it is, in effect, a small, self-contained city, with all the facilities and infrastructure that a modern city needs, such as an airport” - Roy Mallard
I'm not very happy with the way in which destinations from Heathrow are presented. It is taking up an awful lot of space and looks quite clumsy. Has anyone got any better ideas? I reckon a list on a separate page would be good. DJR (Talk) 22:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Grooved asphalt
What is it? I think the infobox should have links, at least to asphalt concrete, but if the term Grooved Asphalt is to be used it would be nice if it was explained what this is. As a fairly laterally-thinking layman, I can only guess that it is asphalt concrete with grooves in it, but am at a loss to why they have grooves in. Something for the asphalt article perhaps, if grooved asphalt doesn't get its own article. BigBlueFish19:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Basically grooving improves the surface traction in wet/damp/contaminated conditions, in some cases quite dramatically. The grooving is usually done by running a diamond cut saw transversally along the runway.
The relevant recommendations from ICAO are that commercial runways should feature a minimum 1mm texture (macrotexture) on new surfaces in order to reduce the potential that aircraft wheels hydroplane. Grooving should be done to the recommended pattern of 3mm x 3mm minimum groves at 25mm centres. BAA went beyond the minimum and grooved both Heathrow runways to a pattern of 4mm x 4mm at 25mm centres along there full length.
Braking performance will be degraded but not beyond the point that you have no effective braking action as can happen on smooth runways with standing water or a heavy downpour furthermore lack of effective macrotexture is one of the most commonly cited factors in aircraft overrun on landing accidents after pilot error and in some instances contributory.
The four basic types of asphalt runway are smooth, grooved, porous friction course and sealed sometimes referred to as chip seal or antiskid.
Smooth is as you'd expect smooth just like a standard asphalt roadway e.g. limited macrotexture some microtexture, usage wear will progressively reduce the macrotexture.
Grooved being as explained above.
Porous friction course is where the surface is layer is designed to allow the surface water to soak through rather than run off generally the usage of PFC is not recommended on high traffic airports due to poor wear life and performance degradation as rubber from the tires fill the porous surface gaps.
Sealed is where a polymer sealant is applied to the surface to bind stone chipings typically 5mm or smaller to the asphalt beyond the chip seal a fog seal of thin asphalt emulsion mix is sprayed on top to reduce tire ware and aircraft/engine damage from chips becoming loose. Pebble dashing a multi-million dollar jet engine is not good.
Concrete runways fall into three core types which are smooth, grooved and treated concrete.
Typically concrete runways will actually be of a Portland Cement Concrete construction.
Smooth is as you'd expect smooth just like commercial/residential flooring and has no macrotexture so regarded as very unsafe by ICAO and FAA.
Grooved is just like its Asphalt sibling however it is possible and safe to groove a PCC surface whilst it is still in its plastic (wet) state.
Treated is where the surface is textured to produce a textured finish the common methods are:
burlap drag, which results in a rough textured finish with striations running in the longitudinal direction the burlap used will typically be of at least 355 gsm/square m.
brush and broom produces a uniform corrugated finish approximately 2mm in depth running longitudinally.
wire combing a deep texture is formed by using rigid steel wires to produce grooves typically of 3mm x 3mm at 13mm centres whilst the concrete is still plastic.
wire tining a deep texture is formed by using flexible steel wires to produce grooves and will result in a surface not dissimilar to combing.
Now this of course all this only refers the wear or surface layer and not the sub layers. The real question is where should this sort of information be placed, seperate entry for runway types? --Swedishchef02:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Well! I couldn't have asked for a more expert response to that. This is Wikipedia at its best. Where the content goes depends on how much of it applies to runways only, and how much is common with other asphalt surface types. I certainly think all the terminology such as grooved asphalt should get redirect articles, either to Runway if the type is used only on runways, or Asphalt concrete or Concrete if it's a common type. Depending on what falls in to what category, information can then go into subsections of the articles, referring to each other as appropriate. BigBlueFish15:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Annoying new security rules
Have anyone heard about new security system used in Heathrow?
I hope this "long" link can work.
I felt really annoyed about this as I am going to experience this myself in a few days. —The preceding unsigned comment was added byW Tanoto (talk • contribs) .
I contracted the long link for you to stop page widening. I can't see anything new on that page; security is tighter now than it was 5 years ago in all airports, I can't see anything specific to Heathrow. BigBlueFish10:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for making the link a lot shorter! Appreciated. I myself don't know how to do it.
About the new security, it is said in the website "Recent enhancements to security procedures"
The new security in Heathrow are:
-that we have to remove laptops from it's bag to be scanned separately
-removing belts
-re-scanning as you approached the gate to the plane.W Tanoto 12:17, 6 March 2006 (GMT)
I'm assuming the first two are down to more sensitive scanning equipment. They have always done random checks on people leaving the after going through security, not everyone has to do it. Heathrow is certainly not alone, and the enhancements are not immediately recent. The main emphasis is clarifying things for people who haven't travelled for a while, and the main new security restrictions are on things like scissors. BigBlueFish13:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
It seems pretty similar to what we've been used to in the US since 9/11. Although, I noticed one line that I found interesting: passengers are not allowed to bring spoons on planes. We definitely don't have that rule: how the hell will someone use a spoon as a weapon? Dbinder16:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Runways
There was a Runway 23 listed in the infobox. Isn't there a Runway 5 connected to it (on the other end?). I have edited it, but correct it if I am wrong.--themit03:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
No, there is no runway 05 - see [2]. It could theoretically be used but an agreement with the residents of Cranford (known as the Cranford protocol) prevents flights from using runway 05, as takeoffs would fly over Cranford at very low altitudes. Furthermore, it is not marked on the airfield at all - looking at Google Maps [3] clearly shows 23 marked, but not 05. --David McCormick19:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Somebody has marked the runway as closed in the infobox - if this is really the case then the info should be removed. Last I knew the runway was effectively closed due to continual NOTAMs being issued marking in out of use - but that's very different from a complete closure. /wangi13:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
What is the status? Just an X at either side?
I suppose it's also ok to call the proposed runway the "Third Runway" since the one in question here isn't anything like the two that are active use. CoolGuy14:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
A380
Singapore Airlines is to fly the A380 into Heathrow, however according to the article Singapore Airlines will be flying from T1, how does this work if only T3 can take A380?
I'm not sure how. I'm also thinking how they will move the lounge as it is beautifully built. I heard Heathrow just confirmed that Terminal 3 will be used by oneworld and its future members (Japan Airlines, etc) from Airlines magazine. (W.Tanoto)
According to the BAA Heathrow Website, terminal 5 will also be able to (eventually) handle A380sDbertman17:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Airline re-shuffle
The LHR Interim Master plan said that Qantas would be using Terminal 5 as well as BA. It also suggested that un-alligned airlines would be using a range of terminals as opposed to T4 only.
klnilsson2
External link to Heathrow airport centre
I have added back twice the link to the heathrow airport vistsor centre. It was removed once with no explanation and then again as link span. How is this link spam. Its one of the best kept secrets the visitor centre and the link shows a good selection of pictures. How is this spam? stupidcupid
Have a read through WP:EL. The main purpose of this link to simply get folk to the website, it's spam. Any encylopedic content can be incorporated in this article, Wikipedia is not a link directory, nor travel guide to visitor attractions. Thanks/wangi21:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
"The main purpose of this link to simply get folk to the website,". Well thats not true at all. The vistor centre lays out the history of the airport. Having looked on the BAA site and then searched around this page seemed like the best selection of pictures and detail.
Lets be clear that this is not the official visitor centre website - it's a section of a website that is trying to flog hotel rooms and airport transfers. Any encylopedic content should be incorporated into this article. The page only has two paragraphs of pretty much nonsense - there's no reason to link to it... /wangi13:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
now you just sound like your on a personal crusade. If someone else will give an opinion on this then i will be happy to accept that. Personally i found the link useful. stupidcupid
Excuse me, but lets see:
The Visitor centre is located outside of the main terminal areas. Its entrance is on the Northern Perimeter road which runs parallel with the airport runway area. Its just a few minutes drive from the terminals and adjacent to the Renaissance Heathrow Hotel. Although car parking is charged its quite reasonable and the actual visitor centre itself is totally free to enter. You can also use the free bus service around the airport to get to the centre and save on parking. The parking area itself is popular with airplane spotters who can usually be seen here with binoculars, cameras and radio scanner to hand.
The centre has been open since May 1995 and provides something a bit different for all the family when you have a lot of time on your hands at the airport. The centre is basically one covered area with no separate rooms or areas, over two floors. An interactive exhibition of the history of Heathrow Airport in photographs and words, with displays, computer displays, artefacts and models. On the first floor is a cafe along with an area that has views of the airport grounds. Also on the first floor is a scale model of the airport alongside a model of the new terminal 5. The first part of the floor at the top of the stairs has exhibits detailing the steps taken by the airport towards combating noise. The ground floor even includes seats taken from actual aircraft and an interactive exhibit that include a flight deck simulation inside an actual aircraft nose cone. The individual display cabinets include exhibits detailing, 'The Dawn of Commercial Airlines', 'A History of BAA and Heathrow Airport Ltd' and 'Heathrow, How It All Began'. A further section is dedicated to 'HM Customs and Excise' and also includes items that been confiscated from passengers trying to take them on flights illegally. The ground floor is even has a stand giving information on runway lighting and has examples of lights used.
What's the interest in that? Crusade, erm... I just don't see the point in linking to useless shite.
And by the way - you're backwards in your "consensus" - as things stand it's just you that wants this link in the article, so until more people want it than not you shouldn't include it. Thanks/wangi14:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
"useless shite"..well your use of the english language does you no credit at all. If someone else gives an unbiased view then i will take the link down. Personally i have not found those pictures elsewhere. stupidcupid
Oh, so it's for those photos now - the ones with a copright logo right across the middle of them. Perhaps you could spend a few minutes to write-up the benefits of including this link, because so far you've given no real reason for its inclusion. Wikipedia is not a link repository. /wangi17:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Third Opinion The link is not spam. Spam links are like when someone trying to sell his fandangled but worthless invention adds a link to the "invention" site. Or when WhizBangBeeBoop.com adds his own entry to Wikipedia. A link to an airport's visitor's center at the bottom of an article about the airport is not spam. The main purpose of a link IS to get folk to a website - that is what a link is for. The question is, is the link relevant to the airport, and I find that it is. Reswobslc18:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
You beat me, so I'll give a fourth opinion. The link isn't spam - spam implies bad intentions, and I see no way the user adding the link gets any personal gain from it. However, I'm not sure it's useful enough to be worth linking to - the details could easilly be added to the article. The pictures don't add much. It doesn't cost much to keep the link there, though, and it isn't doing any harm, so if anyone thinks it's useful, then it might as well stay. --Tango18:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Worth noting that stupidcupid didn't add the link in the first place - it's not them i'm accusing of spam. It's a normal tactic of the airport parking, hotel and transfer sites to put on sub-pages with extra info - the role of these is to simply get extra hits from search engines. This site doesn't add anything to this article, and it open the flood gates to link to other sites - and there are hundreds... /wangi18:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
If they get a few extra hits, then so be it, good for them. If Wikipedia didn't want its articles to contribute to the rankings of search engines, then they would have added a robots.txt file to prevent being spidered by them. All that matters is that they're notable, and the fact that it's a feature of an airport surrounded by 10km of runways is notable enough for me. Reswobslc19:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
from looking at the replys it looks as though so far people think it should stay? Im asking for clarification because in the meantime wangi has once again removed the link. His objection seems geared towards the website rather than anything else. Personally i found it useful. Its also worth noting it had been up for a while before wangi removed it. stupidcupid 16 july 21.33
It is not spam, but I do not feel inclined to include the link in the page as well. The content of the site is not a source of information for the article, and the website is more geared to audiences that would visit the airport for the sake of seeing an airport, not for travelling. The article is about Heathrow, whose primary purpose is to be an airport, not an amusement park. I do not see the link as spam, but I see it as irrelevant. If however, more people here think that the Visitor Centre is important, then why is it that there is no section about the visitor centre in the main article? Elektrik Blue 8221:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, if what you say is true, that people's only interest is in travelling through the airport and nothing more, then perhaps the runway information should be removed as well, since that's supposedly only of interest to pilots and is available on the aeronautical charts they already possess. You're not lobbying for that now, are you? The truth is, people loiter a lot in airports while waiting for flights, and a few displays to "amuse" them for a while are notable... maybe not as a separate article, but certainly as a mention or a link. (If there was an actual amusement park in the airport, that would make it even more notable!) I do think the copyright notices plastered all over the photos at the target website are a bit annoying, but barring the existence of a better source, there is absolutely no reason why that link shouldn't be there. I'll put it back myself. Reswobslc22:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
If the visitor centre is encyclopedic and therefore important, I wonder why there is no webpage offered by the official Heathrow Airport website about it? I'll take it out again. Elektrik Blue 8222:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why there's no web page, but unfortunately there is no WP:Why_is_there_no_Heathrow_visitor's_center_webpage_on_the_Internet to offer that as criteria as to whether that matters in a determination. What does matter is that there's WP:EL that supports the link, and there's WP:3O (Third Opinion) that allows for the resolution of these sort of "yes-it-is, no-it-isn't" kind of disputes. WP:3O brought not just a third but a fourth opinion, from people completely uninitiated into the ongoing dispute, and the consensus was that the link was not spam, did not violate WP:EL, and should stay. Those guidelines and procedures were put there for a reason, and that reason was not for you to ignore it. That's the end of it! Do not keep reverting it. Reswobslc05:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Eh, Elektrik Blue 82 is not me. Using WP:3O isn't the be all and end all - it's just another opinion... The opinion that is given as a result of a listing there is useful, but it doesn't overrule the opionion of others, especially other people who have joined the discussion after your initial post.
well now youve put the BAA site up. This is sad to me. If the link is worth having which would you find the most useful? Baa have never had anything other than a mention of the visitor centre. There is no way i would know what its like from their link. The original link gave me an imnpression and also shows it as a veiwing point for plane spotters. I dont understand why because the site with the link happens to flog hotel rooms means its not credible as a link. Im not sure what is worse. Sites that use wiki to spam links or editors that remove links because they dont like the site being linked to. Simply because BAA is the offical site for heathrow does not make it the best resource. stupidcupid09:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I have put it up, and I am NOT wangi. I replaced the external site with the official one to maintain NPOV. If the entity itself, in this case, BAA, is content with the information that they have for the visitor centre, and they see no reason to elaborate, then why would you insist on using another source? You are in essence doing more than what the official entities are dong. Obviously, for BAA it is not that important to provide a quasi-travel book entry for their visitor centre. I don't see the reason to do more than what they do. Elektrik Blue 8212:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Seems like the offical site it the best choice. Using a link to a website that is selling services seems to be clearly be a link to a spam site. When it displays a copyright with the site name over all of the pictures, it says spam. Stay with the BAA site. If the center is so important on its own, would it not be better to write an article rather then rely on external links? Vegaswikian21:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I will agree with EB82 in that the "official" link is more preferable to the "unofficial" one, even if the "official" one contains a dumb boring message that basically reads "see you later". Adding a small subsection would be reasonable as well. I suppose the only thing I've come to the table with is that the visitor's center should be represented, not that the specific use of that URL is mandatory. Reswobslc12:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
"why would you insist on using another source?" Where have i insisted? Far from it. I started this discussion about the first link when it was taken down and not replaced with anything. I presonally believe the first link to be more useful. Where did i take that one stage futher and insist it be used? I said it was sad that as far as i can tell the most compelling reason not to use it was because of other content on the site and not the link itself. As for the arguement that if BAA dont see fit to exapnd the details why should anyone else..well thats starting to get so far from being a well thought out and compelling arguemnt as to prove my own feeling right about the prejudice of some editors as to who should and should not be linked to. Very sad. How comes nobody had a problem with it till wangi went on his crusade? What exactly is the point of Wiki? To best serve the editors or the public? stupidcupid12:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh joy, you're accusing me of something else - must try harder on the facts front, eh? For the record I wasn't the first to remove the external link. Thanks/wangi13:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
well no surprises that you come back with something pretty weak at best. Anyhow my remarks were clearly addressed to the person I quoted. "why would you insist on using another source?" stupidcupid14:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
You've lost me again - who are you Reswobslc, or stupidcupid? (for context for this comment see [5]) I'm sorry if you think pointing out that in fact I didn't do something you alleged me to is a "weak response", but I'm getting a little pissed off here with your lack of care for facts - if you're going to say I did or said something then please be careful enough to make sure I did do/say those things. It's not hard.
"What exactly is the point of Wiki?": "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: not a link directory, and not a tourist guide" - makes plenty sense to me. Thanks/wangi15:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Wangi said>>> who are you Reswobslc, or stupidcupid?
Well now you show yourself in your true colours for all to see. Now you accuse me of being two users? You find that a worthwhile comment? Now your making yourself look stupid. Well done!
Wangi said>>> I'm sorry if you think pointing out that in fact I didn't do something you alleged me to is a "weak response",
If I quote another user, and then reply to that quote, forgive me for making this sound simple but..99% of users would know im addressing my remarks to the person being quoted. Of course if your saying you weren’t sure if those were your remarks or not, that you could read through a couple of paragraphs to refresh your memory as to whether you said that or not than of course its all my fault. I should have placed a 12 foot banner saying THIS QUOTE IS NOT FROM WANGI!....maybe I should do that for every post? Or maybe your saying you post as more than one user and you forgot which ID you used?
Wangi said>>> but I'm getting a little pissed off here with your lack of care for facts - if you're going to say I did or said something then please be careful enough to make sure I did do/say those things.
Well yes we see your use of the English language in all its glory once again here. If every post must specify whther its addressed at you or not I can see how frustrating it must be reading through wiki at all.
Wang said>>> Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: not a link directory, and not a tourist guide" - makes plenty sense to me.
Yes it does make sense. Of course you left out the context of my question which relates not to the general point of wiki but to the bias of some users (you) to which links they want to see. We already know you alone claimed the first link was spam and you removed it on that basis. Even users who don’t think the link should have been there agreed it was not spam. So your poor judgment is not in doubt. Your following days of rant showed your true reason for not wanting the link, it was because you didn’t like the idea of the site also selling hotel rooms. The link to the visitor centre is still there by the way, which shows it was regarded as being a legitimate item to link to. My point still remains that if its worth linking to the first link was far more useful to the general public.
stupidcupid09:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
You're getting carried away, and starting with personal attacks and accusing me of using more than one user - please don't, focus on the issue, not the person, not the language (because your English is excellent, after all). You wrongly signed your post ((for context for this comment see [6])), it was confusing - note the comment on your talk page from Reswobslc saying that too. Have a look up the page - I'm not the only one who considers the link spam (Vegas's comment). The fact that the link is still there is only really indicative of letting a discussion run its course, rather then constant reverting.
But you're right saying I don't like the idea of a quasi-informative article being linked when the site's main purpose is commercial - it's spam. Thanks/wangi09:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
on the basis that the site is commercial? excuse me while i stop laughing. You think its legitmate not to a link to useful information on the basis that the site is commercial? You'll be removing the BAA links then? In case you werent aware, BAA owns the UKs major airports for the purposes of making a profit. stupidcupid10:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The difference is clear. This article is about Heathrow Airport - it makes perfect sense to link to the official airport website. This article is not about the visitor centre. /wangi10:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
well its not clear to me. We are talking about the visitor centre which is why this sub section is called the heathrow visitor centre. Either a link to it is warranted or its not. You say you didnt like the first link because it was commercial. Yet the current link is still to a commercial site. The question should be which serves the user best not whether its commercial or not. And again i put it to you, you yourself said if you have the link make it to the offical site even though its commercial. Why dont you say if you mjust have the link make it to the best page that serves the user. You may well say the current page does that. But then why say you didnt like the first link because it was commerical? Stupidcupid10:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
At the moment I don't think the link is required. If there was a section about the visitor centre or the whole article was about the visitor centre then it might be useful, but even then a link without photos splashed with copyright notices would be preferable. The way it is at the moment it looks like an weak attempt to boost traffic and PageRank. --Fozi99910:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
you can only boost page rank with inbound links. How does making a page about the vistor centre boost that? Not that its relevant anyway. The only question is whether the link adds anything to the section. If it does then which link best serves the user. This offtopic talk about whether its commercial, whther its boosting page rank (the suggestion at which i scratch my head)or whether its boosting traffic is not what should come into the discussion. This just adds weight to my earlier comment on users who follow their own agenda. All i know is that i took a look at the link and thought it was useful. Ive been to the centre and I hadnt seen a another page that showed just what you will find there. Its also showed the plane spotter point, which believe it or not is something plane spotters are always asking about. The BAA page has never given the user any idea of what to find there. I am amazed at the hostility to the page based not on what the user is bet served by but by editors own ideas as to who deserves to be linked to. Very sad. Stupidcupid11:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
You said "whether the link adds anything to the section", however there isn't in fact any mention of the visitor centre in the article. Nobody has felt it worthy or encyclopedic enough to write anything up yet. Rather than discuss the addition of an external link it'd be much more beneficial to Wikipedia to add content - add a section on the visitor centre, rather than simply a link. That's service to the reader. /wangi12:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
In fact write an article - that's how the encyclopedia grow... I've even uploaded an image for you: Heathrow Visitor Centre. /wangi13:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
aha! Now youve moved to a point of consensus. I cant argue with that. Agreed. Of course it doesnt alter my previuos points at all. The link was up. If you wanted to remove it then write an article in its place. Agreed. The discussion descended into a series of side issues ending with the strange one of page rank and traffic. Nonsense of course as they should not be considered when deciding if a link is worthy or not. Anyway. Yes agreed. Better to have the centre listed with an article than linking out at all. Stupidcupid13:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
although i have to say. You have now removed the link once again. Your reason THIS TIME being its not mentioned in the article. Isnt that the point of external links? If it was mentioned in the article then it would be a refrence would it not? Stupidcupid13:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't think that is the point of external links. I always thought a reference was used to back up points made in an article whereas external links are used to provide further information about an article's subject which is perhaps not suitable for an encyclopedia.
On the issue of boosting traffic I think you missed my point completely. Yes, you can only improve PageRank with inbound links and an inbound link from Wikipedia is quite valuable. See WP:SPAM#External_link_spamming. Still scratching your head? --Fozi99914:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
no i didnt miss your point at all. I guess i need to say it straight out. I didnt place the original link. I wasnt the only one to replace it. Unless your saying one of us works for the website then boosting traffic and page rank is a non-argument. If you ARE saying that then it basically correlates with much of the pointless comments made in this discussion. The site doesnt sell tickets to the visitor centre either so its not trying to sell a product. They may have placed the link to start with but it was here for a quite a while and at least two of us supported it. The only thing being boosted here is the strength of my arguement as to why some editors do wiki an injustice. Discuss the link. Dont judge a link by your biased views on who should get a link. Wang should not have removed the link without replacing it with an article. He and some others seem to think wiki is their own work. Its not. Its belongs to everyone. Stupidcupid16:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
You have some serious problems. Read what I actually posted in relation to the link and you'll find that I don't object to the link being in the article, nor did I accuse anyone of putting the link there to boost traffic.
“
At the moment I don't think the link is required. If there was a section about the visitor centre or the whole article was about the visitor centre then it might be useful, but even then a link without photos splashed with copyright notices would be preferable. The way it is at the moment it looks like an weak attempt to boost traffic and PageRank. --Fozi99910:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
”
Where in my original post did I say that you placed the link to boost traffic and when did I use it as an argument as to why the link shouldn't be there? I think you'll find that I'm actually trying to support your cause as long as you go about it in the right way. Instead you just seem intent on attacking anyone who doesn't support your view 100%. That, in my view, is what is bad for Wikipedia. --Fozi99917:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
wangi alone has repeatedly removed the link. It still rather looks a personal judgment from where I sit. Even when the link was changed to BAA he decided on his own to remove that as well.
Coming back to your point about when you said:
>>>The way it is at the moment it looks like an weak attempt to boost traffic and PageRank
As you stated this when no link at all was in place I can only read that as the support I was giving still in this discussion. Can you explain further what you meant then since no link was in place and the link just before that was the official BAA one.
Stupidcupid19:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm really not trying to argue with you. Perhaps I should have worded my original post a bit clearer. When I wrote my first comment I'm not sure if the link was there or not, but I knew it had been becasue I'd been reading bits of this discussion. All I meant by the comment was that with the current article content the external link doesn't seem necessary. Hence the reason why I suggested that adding something to the article would justify its inclusion. --Fozi99922:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Was reading the conversation above when I note some comments made on "spam" and the preference for official sites. I find it disturbing that some appear to have this misconception that
Only official sites are to be linked to wikipedia articles. Other sites can only be linked if they were used as references.
Official sites are less POV and less commercial in nature, hence their less likelihood in being interpreted as spam.
Read through WP:EL carefully, and it does not make any of the above conclusions. Official sites should be linked if they exist, but they do not preclude the inclusion of any other link. Links which were used as references are listed...as reference. Any other link can still appear under the "external link" section. And I would hardly think that an official site of a company can consistently be any less commercial, and more NPOV, than an unofficial one.--Huaiwei14:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the fresh point of view Huaiwei. You echo my thoughts. I took it one step further and thought it a diservice users such as wangi did to Wiki by imposing their own version of the wiki guidelines on links. Taking it beyond opinion and deiciding since they believed the link should not exsist, even to the offical site, they would continually remove it as though they were the last word on the subject. Stupidcupid07:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Well I do not believe in either of the two observations that Huaiwei mentioned above - so if i'm one of the folk he's refering to them he must have misunderstood my comments, or I must have put them across poorly. Thanks/wangi13:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I read the top half of comments above (it starts getting tiring after that), checked out the link, and I find it difficult to fathom why anyone should laboriously remove such a source and label it "spam" outright, unless one insists that only official sites are allowed, or that "spam" is defined by any site with a hint of advertising on it (even if the later exists to keep the site financially alive). I do not wish to target against anyone, but it does not help that the above dispute includes the involvement of folks who had a history of driving me up the wall with their literal (and sometimes skewed) interpretations of wikiguidelines.--Huaiwei14:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Moving forward on extlink for Heathrow Visitor Centre
Okay, I'm sure everyone would agree we're at a bit of a deadlock here with regards to the link to the visitor section. There seem to be a number of ways forward:
happy to go along with anything that is indeed a concensus. Beit a poll or anything else. However a minimum number of users should be agreed as a requirement before the results are taken. Theres two questions here. Should the centre be linked to at all. If so which link is more useful. This could be any site, not just the two already linked in the past. However it does seem a lot of work for one simple link. Stupidcupid15:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Terminal 6 and Third Runway
Does anyone have more information on the proposed locations of Terminal 6 and the Third Runway? It would be a good addition to the article. Thanks, CoolGuy17:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Terminal 6 is proposed to the North of the airport. # Stupidcupid
That's true. Though rumors that come from a substantial source and that can be referenced could be ok. Perhaps rumor is the wrong word. If there are any government proposals, hopefully someone will provide a source. CoolGuy01:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
baa published their plans at the start of june 2005. Its here:
anyway, since terminal 6 is all conjecture currently anyway then a round up of rumours may be appropriate in the context of it definitely being an aim with the outcome unknown by anyone including BAA. Stupidcupid
I'm sure I saw an article on the BBC that the third runway was proposed to be parallel and south of the other two. --Scott Wilson20:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
From what I can recall, there have been two distinct suggestions for the position of third runway: either (a) a short runway south of the existing runways on land already part of Heathrow Airport, or (b) a slightly longer runway north of the A4 and M4 involving the demolition of a village. In both cases the runway would be parallel with the existing runways and would handle mainly smaller aircraft so as to make more 'large aircraft' capacity available on the current runways. The whole situation is still very much up in the air. Also, at the public hearing re Terminal 5, BAA explicitly said that they ruled out a third runway at Heathrow. Murray Langton20:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
MAN/MHT Disambiguation
While I agree that small airports such as Aberdeen don't need disambiguating, since it's pretty clear that no airlines are flying from there to New Hampshire, a major international airport such as Heathrow (as well as Gatwick) should have it. From Gatwick anyway, it's quite possible that there are charter flights to Manchester, NH, since I know there are a handful of trans-Atlantic charters from even smaller New England airports such as Portland, ME. Providence and Hartford also have some. Dbinder (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
It was simply known as "London Airport" until the early 1970s. Gatwick before then was just known as "Gatwick Airport" and Stansted had only just opened as a civilian airport. In the Seventies, Gatwick was officially associated with London to become "London Gatwick", and so to disambiguate "London Airport" became "London Heathrow". Stansted picked up its London prefix later. BaseTurnComplete10:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank You; however, there is extensive reference to names w/ several words, & multiple article-titles, & variations.
Have we got the best location for the Heathrow article?
Look at What Links Here we find articles link to "London Heathrow Airport", "Heathrow" , "Heathrow Airport" and "Heathrow airport" but NO articles link directly to this long-winded and seldom-used (though presumably the official(?)) name. How about we revert to London Heathrow Airport? Pcb21 10:01 19 May 2003 (UTC)
With the "...long-winded and seldom-used...", it does read as if some of the names would actually include some six words or so. Please, what are they?
Eh, what article name are you refering to when you say "but NO articles link directly to this long-winded and seldom-used (though presumably the official(?)) name"? This article is at London Heathrow Airport - that seems reasonable to me. Thanks/wangi08:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
films? television?
Can someone tell me the point of having a section for where the airport was mentioned in films and television? If this was a true article of all references it would be rivalling the size of a small wiki in itself. Therefore it seems totally pointless to me and i suggest they are removed. What do we learn about Heathrow from them anyway? Thundernlightning18:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I like the section! Just wondering though, the footage of the key characters arriving, it wouldn't be taken in T4 would it? Because there are Virgin Atlantic crew walking out there?
klnilsson2
