stlgph
Topic Author
Posts: 10489
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:19 pm

Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 4:09 pm

So, someone at Wikipedia has decided to change their "airport listings policy" (if there is one), again.

Before, the terminals outlining airport services were eliminated, and now, airline services are being consolidated into the umbrella carrier. For example, Delta Connection destination listings for some airports are now all showing up under the heading for just Delta Air Lines, so on and so forth.

Oy.
if assumptions could fly, airliners.net would be the world's busiest airport
 
Balloonchaser
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:29 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 4:15 pm

That’s not fully true... People don’t like it and they added it... Just like how Airport Naps are frowned upon.

It’s not “Banned” but people would rather it without
 
WWads
Posts: 282
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:18 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 4:58 pm

This is so stupid. It's not at all accurate to say that flights operated by third-party regional operators are Delta flights, American flights, etc.

Different call signs, different operating certificates, different crews. Heck, often times the equipment isn't even owned by the airline whose name is on the side of the plane.

I was annoyed enough when they dropped the terminal/concourse listing, but this goes too far. It's factually incorrect to do this.
 
masonh2479
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2017 8:44 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 5:10 pm

I don’t see why there was a need to get rid of saying operated by or showing connection carriers. I liked it a lot, their argument is that the casual searcher just wants the mainline airline shown even though the flights are flown by a connection carrier, I was a casual searcher and liked seeing mainline and connection carriers shown.

The system was fine and it seems like the people at wiki might have a screw loose. I could understand merging Alaska together because they don’t have a rj brand, but merging Delta and Delta Connection doesn’t make any sense. Now if they change their mind it will take awhile to get things back in order. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

If you guys want to see where this decision was made, it was made here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports
Last edited by masonh2479 on Wed Jan 24, 2018 5:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Midwestindy
Posts: 3078
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 3:56 am

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 5:14 pm

WWads wrote:
This is so stupid. It's not at all accurate to say that flights operated by third-party regional operators are Delta flights, American flights, etc.

Different call signs, different operating certificates, different crews. Heck, often times the equipment isn't even owned by the airline whose name is on the side of the plane.

I was annoyed enough when they dropped the terminal/concourse listing, but this goes too far. It's factually incorrect to do this.


I think the thinking is that most people don't notice the difference between let's say American eagle and American Airlines, and some people just don't care they just want to know which airline(s) serve which routes.

Personally, I think it can be taken as a bit misleading, plus the system that was used before wasn't broken so why fix it? I know wikipedia is an encyclopedia but that doesn't mean it shouldn't have some important details in it as well.... Honestly though, I don't really care how it is listed as long as it is still informative for the reader...
DL DM, AA Gold 2018: AMS, ATL, AUS, BOS, BWI, CDG, CLT, CMN, DCA, DFW, DTW, DXB, EWR, FLL, FRA, HAV, HPN, JFK, JNB, IAD, IAH, IND, LAX, LGA, LHR, LOS, MAD, MCO, MIA, MSP, ORD, PBI, PHL, PVD, SAN, SEA, SJD, SLC, SFO, STL, TPA, TXL, ZRH....Loading....
 
User avatar
Slash787
Posts: 707
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 9:37 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 5:18 pm

So I am not the only one who noticed this.

The terminal thing has become annoying now, before at least I used to know that which Airline is flying from Which Terminal. A/B/C or North/South. Now its all one.
 
richierich
Posts: 3522
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2000 5:49 am

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 5:21 pm

There are a lot of airports with regional traffic...just curious, how did they do this? One by one?
Count me in the group that doesn't approve of this.
None shall pass!!!!
 
Themotionman
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 1:18 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 5:24 pm

It makes it so much more effort to see if an airline is operating a route with a RJ or mainline. I have to go and go and check the airline's schedule on their website.
 
ahj2000
Posts: 1135
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:34 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 5:26 pm

Not a fan, but this isn’t the end of the world. People (like A.Nutters) who want to know can really just go look on the carrier’s site or google flights.
-Andrés Juánez
 
User avatar
SumChristianus
Posts: 533
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:00 am

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 5:26 pm

They even used to split regional operations out by carrier, I liked it better that way to.
Time to start an Airpedia.org to fully show all of this information they are removing?
A Traddie wannaby---UA DL LH NW AA --- Next DEN-IND (to be decided) Any suggestions?
"Born in Wonder, Brought to Wisdom"
 
User avatar
Maxvokia
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon May 23, 2016 4:59 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 5:26 pm

 
User avatar
sergegva
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 9:12 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 5:29 pm

Broadly speaking, I think this is is not such a bad decision. For some years, airlines started to make several internal rearrangements for the sole purpose of saving money. But from the customer point of view, the airline that takes you from point A to point B is the one who sells tickets, the one whos name is written in the boarding pass, or the one whos livery appears on the aircraft. The operator of the aircraft or the crew doesn't really matter, and in any case does not comply with wikipedia's Principle of least astonishment.

If I buy a ticket through eurowings.com, print a boarding pass showing Eurowings Logo & an EW flight code (plus probably "operated by brussels airlines" in small letters somewhere), and board a plane wearing Eurowing's livery, I don't want that flight not to be listed in Eurowings' destinations. Same goes for fleet charts: from the principle of least astonishment point of view, it's a nonsense to list these A340 in Brussels Airlines' fleet chart. Or not showing Easyjet Europe or Easyjet Switzerland's fleet in Easyjet's fleet chart...

But I admit that going from many lines in the charts for, let's say, Delta ( -> Delta, Delta Connection operated by XXX, Delta Connection operated by YYY) to one single line is maybe a stretch too far. Two lines (Delta / Delta Connection) is defensible (nor exactly the same name neither exact same livery).
 
User avatar
SumChristianus
Posts: 533
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:00 am

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 5:33 pm

sergegva wrote:
Broadly speaking, I think this is is not such a bad decision. For some years, airlines started to make several internal rearrangements for the sole purpose of saving money. But from the customer point of view, the airline that takes you from point A to point B is the one who sells tickets, the one whos name is written in the boarding pass, or the one whos livery appears on the aircraft. The operator of the aircraft or the crew doesn't really matter, and in any case does not comply with wikipedia's Principle of least astonishment.

If I buy a ticket through eurowings.com, print a boarding pass showing Eurowings Logo & an EW flight code (plus probably "operated by brussels airlines" in small letters somewhere), and board a plane wearing Eurowing's livery, I don't want that flight not to be listed in Eurowings' destinations. Same goes for fleet charts: from the principle of least astonishment point of view, it's a nonsense to list these A340 in Brussels Airlines' fleet chart. Or not showing Easyjet Europe or Easyjet Switzerland's fleet in Easyjet's fleet chart...

But I admit that going from many lines in the charts for, let's say, Delta ( -> Delta, Delta Connection operated by XXX, Delta Connection operated by YYY) to one single line is maybe a stretch too far. Two lines (Delta / Delta Connection) is defensible (nor exactly the same name neither exact same livery).


I agree, Delta, Delta Connection, is far more informative, especially given the public confusion over operators in the Dr. Dao incident. Delta Connection is a separate operator(s), with its own Wikipedia page, is the only operator to many regional cities, and has different pilots, operational standards, paint scheme (in a way), and often service. It is a separate brand in the same way that Eurowings is not Lufthansa and Silk Air is not, and should not be listed as Singapore Airlines. Yes the booking process, is the same, but airlines themselves differentiate the distance on their websites and on even on tickets.
A Traddie wannaby---UA DL LH NW AA --- Next DEN-IND (to be decided) Any suggestions?
"Born in Wonder, Brought to Wisdom"
 
ericm2031
Posts: 896
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 8:46 am

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 5:35 pm

There was a lot of discussion on the Wiki boards about it.

Although I’m not sure I like it, so many routes have been switching between regional and mainline, or have a mix, that it was becoming more and more difficult to keep up with and many times was inaccurate (even on the hub pages). Or if a route is seasonally mainline, sometimes it’s difficult to know when/if it will go back the next year so it just sits in limbo for many months.

And then you have Alaska SkyWest/Horizon switching back and forth, which was becoming tedious to keep up with.
 
evanb
Posts: 502
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:26 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 5:37 pm

My irritation has always been how they list Air Asia airlines separate, e.g. Air Asia, Thai Air Asia and Thai Air Asia X. While they separate operational entities, they are marketed under a single brand. I wouldn't mind if it were listed as Air Asia (operated by Thai Air Asia), etc.
 
User avatar
cvgComair
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:48 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 5:40 pm

It is about sourcing, you have to understand the purpose of Wikipedia to understand this change. The destination tables are poorly sourced and this is part of a larger effort to align the destination tables more with the policies of Wikipedia.
Next: PWM-JFK (Delta CRJ-900), JFK-CVG Delta CRJ-900)
DL FO, A319/320/332/333, B712/722/732/733/738/739/752/753/763/764/772/773/788, CRJ-100/2/7/9, ERJ-145/75, MD-88/90, S340
 
User avatar
neomax
Posts: 948
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2017 3:26 am

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 5:43 pm

Can this be undone?
 
User avatar
cvgComair
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:48 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 5:43 pm

neomax wrote:
Can this be undone?

Not without changing the purpose of Wikipedia. ericm2031 summarized it almost perfectly.

ericm2031 wrote:
There was a lot of discussion on the Wiki boards about it.

Although I’m not sure I like it, so many routes have been switching between regional and mainline, or have a mix, that it was becoming more and more difficult to keep up with and many times was inaccurate (even on the hub pages). Or if a route is seasonally mainline, sometimes it’s difficult to know when/if it will go back the next year so it just sits in limbo for many months.

And then you have Alaska SkyWest/Horizon switching back and forth, which was becoming tedious to keep up with.
Next: PWM-JFK (Delta CRJ-900), JFK-CVG Delta CRJ-900)
DL FO, A319/320/332/333, B712/722/732/733/738/739/752/753/763/764/772/773/788, CRJ-100/2/7/9, ERJ-145/75, MD-88/90, S340
 
User avatar
cvgComair
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:48 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 5:47 pm

Don't complain too much, the alternative was removing the tables completely. I (and other editors) have fought a lot to preserve the tables in Wikipedia. However, we are going to be forced to make some changes such as this to keep the tables encyclopedic.
Next: PWM-JFK (Delta CRJ-900), JFK-CVG Delta CRJ-900)
DL FO, A319/320/332/333, B712/722/732/733/738/739/752/753/763/764/772/773/788, CRJ-100/2/7/9, ERJ-145/75, MD-88/90, S340
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 5:48 pm

Perhaps they have been visiting anet, and read the average passenger can't even tell the difference between an A320 and an A380, let alone brand differentiation.

Also track use and contribution when sought. Are the group that 'care', a bit tight in the donation department?
 
Atlwarrior
Posts: 291
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 3:42 am

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 5:50 pm

My college want let us use Wikipedia to cite sources.
 
WIederling
Posts: 6722
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 5:55 pm

Atlwarrior wrote:
My college want let us use Wikipedia to cite sources.


you can always dereference to the WP source.
WP has done all your work there. ;-)
Murphy is an optimist
 
ADrum23
Posts: 1789
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 11:54 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 5:57 pm

cvgComair wrote:
Don't complain too much, the alternative was removing the tables completely. I (and other editors) have fought a lot to preserve the tables in Wikipedia. However, we are going to be forced to make some changes such as this to keep the tables encyclopedic.


This.

You can blame us for this a.netters. We’ve been largely behind these edits (I’m NBA2030 FYI).

I don’t know about cvgComair, but trust me, I hate this just as much as you do. I would have preferred to leave it alone, but certain users are being incredibly anal retentive about certain things such as citations and formatting. Thus, this was a compromise of some sorts to save the table.

I’m sorry for all who don’t like it. I agree with you in principle, but Wikipedia is too dang strict.......
 
User avatar
cvgComair
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:48 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 5:59 pm

ADrum23 wrote:
cvgComair wrote:
Don't complain too much, the alternative was removing the tables completely. I (and other editors) have fought a lot to preserve the tables in Wikipedia. However, we are going to be forced to make some changes such as this to keep the tables encyclopedic.


This.

You can blame us for this a.netters. We’ve been largely behind these edits (I’m NBA2030 FYI).

I don’t know about cvgComair, but trust me, I hate this just as much as you do. I would have preferred to leave it alone, but certain users are being incredibly anal retentive about certain things such as citations and formatting. Thus, this was a compromise of some sorts to save the table.

I’m sorry for all who don’t like it. I agree with you in principle, but Wikipedia is too dang strict.......

Yep, I totally agree. (I'm Stinger20 for anyone who doesn't know)
Next: PWM-JFK (Delta CRJ-900), JFK-CVG Delta CRJ-900)
DL FO, A319/320/332/333, B712/722/732/733/738/739/752/753/763/764/772/773/788, CRJ-100/2/7/9, ERJ-145/75, MD-88/90, S340
 
SeaDoo
Posts: 223
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 6:01 pm

Too bad. It was easy to figure out before. This makes it harder to get.good information. I wish for Airlines, they would also separate put domestic vs international.
 
FSDan
Posts: 1827
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:27 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 6:05 pm

ericm2031 wrote:
Although I’m not sure I like it, so many routes have been switching between regional and mainline, or have a mix, that it was becoming more and more difficult to keep up with and many times was inaccurate (even on the hub pages). Or if a route is seasonally mainline, sometimes it’s difficult to know when/if it will go back the next year so it just sits in limbo for many months.

And then you have Alaska SkyWest/Horizon switching back and forth, which was becoming tedious to keep up with.


This is a good point, in my opinion. I can't count the number of times I've found incorrect data on Wikipedia regarding whether a given destination is served by mainline or regional, and it's not surprising given the high frequency with which this info changes. An airline might fly XXX-YYY with 4x CR2 + 1x CR7 + 1x 320 one month, and the next month decide that 1x CR2 + 1x CR7 + 4x E75 is better. Two months after that, it might be 2x CR2 + 3x CR7 + 1x 319.
This is my signature until I think of a better one.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 995
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 6:07 pm

Maxvokia wrote:

:checkmark: Yes, that is where I have been looking too.
Actually, that is where barely half the discussion takes place. Many of the same themes re-appear under different headings, such as...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... A_articles)
Don't be fooled by the heading - the discussion incorporates much more than the heading suggests.

Here are some selected extracts to whet your appetites.
Wikipedia:talk wrote:
Anything branded as Alaska Airlines should be labelled as such, the operator is an unrequited detail. If the flight is branded as a Horizon flight, it should be labelled as such.. Garretka

Wikipedia is for a general audience, not just us avgeeks. Shelbystripes

I would get rid of the whole "operated by" thing and just go by what the average person would understand - anything else is in my view unencyclopaedic directory like information, and confusing. My rule would be "What do the big words say on the aeroplane" and use that. Andrewgprout

Something else to consider. American, Delta and United's express destinations are all labeled as "American Eagle", "Delta Connection", and "United Express". All three of these carriers have Skywest planes in their fleet, but we have never labeled them as such in the destinations tables. Alaska's SkyWest destinations in the destinations tables should be labeled similarly, in my opinion. Unfortunately (for us as editors in this situation), Horizon Air does not operate all of Alaska's express flights, hence why we currently differentiate SkyWest and Horizon from each other in the destinations tables.

User:Garretka just recently combined SkyWest with Alaska at Portland International Airport, and I'm not so sure that I agree with this because we would essentially be labeling SkyWest's Alaska destinations as their mainline fleet. It would be similar to combining "American Eagle" with "American Airlines" "Delta Connection with "Delta Air Lines" and "United" with "United express", which we could do, but at that point, I think that would be way too tenacious.


These guys are a mix of ordinary people (just like us on a.net), some are pilots, some frequent flyers, and some just enthusiastic amateurs. And there is nothing to stop any one of us stepping forward and becoming a contributor to Wikipedia to help set the record straight.

(There is more, lot's more, but you can dig out the detail for yourself as you please.)

EDIT; I now see that several Wikipedia:talk contributors have in fact joined this discussion. I pretty much expected they were already here on a.net too.
Last edited by SheikhDjibouti on Wed Jan 24, 2018 6:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I promised myself I'd leave before the party turned ugly. I would quit at 1000 !
Here I am stuck at 994; each time I'm tempted to post, I find myself wondering who will even read it / what is the point?
Or maybe I've just got nothing left to say.
 
User avatar
cvgComair
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:48 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 6:07 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Maxvokia wrote:

:checkmark: Yes, that is where I have been looking too.
Actually, that is where barely half the discussion takes place. Many of the same themes re-appear under different headings, such as...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... A_articles)
Don't be fooled by the heading - the discussion incorporates much more than the heading suggests.

Here are some selected extracts to whet your appetites.
Wikipedia:talk wrote:
Anything branded as Alaska Airlines should be labelled as such, the operator is an unrequited detail. If the flight is branded as a Horizon flight, it should be labelled as such.. Garretka

Wikipedia is for a general audience, not just us avgeeks. Shelbystripes

I would get rid of the whole "operated by" thing and just go by what the average person would understand - anything else is in my view unencyclopaedic directory like information, and confusing. My rule would be "What do the big words say on the aeroplane" and use that. Andrewgprout

Something else to consider. American, Delta and United's express destinations are all labeled as "American Eagle", "Delta Connection", and "United Express". All three of these carriers have Skywest planes in their fleet, but we have never labeled them as such in the destinations tables. Alaska's SkyWest destinations in the destinations tables should be labeled similarly, in my opinion. Unfortunately (for us as editors in this situation), Horizon Air does not operate all of Alaska's express flights, hence why we currently differentiate SkyWest and Horizon from each other in the destinations tables.

User:Garretka just recently combined SkyWest with Alaska at Portland International Airport, and I'm not so sure that I agree with this because we would essentially be labeling SkyWest's Alaska destinations as their mainline fleet. It would be similar to combining "American Eagle" with "American Airlines" "Delta Connection with "Delta Air Lines" and "United" with "United express", which we could do, but at that point, I think that would be way too tenacious.


These guys are a mix of ordinary people (just like us on a.net), some are pilots, some frequent flyers, and some just enthusiastic amateurs. And there is nothing to stop any one of us stepping forward and becoming a contributor to Wikipedia to help set the record straight.

(There is more, lot's more, but you can dig out the detail for yourself as you please.)

"to help set the record straight"???? Unless you understand the policies of Wikipedia, you are not going to have much success... I don't like the change, but it was necessary because of wikipedia's policies. The alternative was getting rid of the tables completely.
Last edited by cvgComair on Wed Jan 24, 2018 6:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Next: PWM-JFK (Delta CRJ-900), JFK-CVG Delta CRJ-900)
DL FO, A319/320/332/333, B712/722/732/733/738/739/752/753/763/764/772/773/788, CRJ-100/2/7/9, ERJ-145/75, MD-88/90, S340
 
User avatar
ClassicLover
Posts: 4414
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:27 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 6:10 pm

I've always been a fan of the people who kept the Wikipedia airport tables up to date. I really missed the various terminals when they were removed as it was a handy way to see if I would have to connect between terminals or not on arrival at another city. Also, when I specifically wanted to find BA destinations from T3 at LHR, I was able to do this really fast by checking Wikipedia. It's a shame the airport web sites don't have this information in an easy to read format like this.

Anyway, if it's a choice between having the tables that list airline and destination or not, I'd rather have it than not have it. For those who update Wikipedia regularly, well done! I really appreciate it. I've only written one or two articles myself (a lot of the Qantas history and most of the Naming of Qantas Aircraft was done by me) but it is a lot of work and thank goodness people take the time to do it!
I do enjoy a spot of flying, especially when it's not in economy!
 
Jshank83
Posts: 1978
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 2:23 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 6:13 pm

I am fine with the change. Like others mentioned, as much as routes were changing between mainline and regional, seasonal and non seasonal, it could be hard to keep up with. This makes it easier and I doubt most wikipedia users even know there is a difference. I would guess most people you would ask wouldn't know that RJs are run by a different company than the mainline so you might as well lump them together. Any airport that didn't have someone keeping it up usually was wrong anyway. It was nice to have it broken out because I was interested but in the grand scheme of things people on here are going to look it up on other places anyway.

That said, why were the terminals taken out? Those didn't change as much as airline routes.
 
User avatar
FA9295
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:44 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 7:16 pm

In short, this was done because it violated Wikipedia guidelines.

As a Wikipedia editor myself who often edits aviation-related articles, you have to understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a travel guide. Information such as terminals and regional carriers are not encyclopedic. The airport pages on Wikipedia are not just for us aviation-geeks like us, but the average person is not going to care about regional carriers and terminal information. Besides, this information is pretty much already listed in the body paragraphs of the Wikipedia articles, and listing the terminals in the airlines and destinations tables makes the airport articles look like travel guides, not encyclopedia articles.

With that aside, here are the MAIN REASONs that we removed the regional carriers from the airlines and destinations tables:
    Airlines always list all of their flights (including regional/subsidiary flights) as the marketing carrier (the mainline carrier), not the regional airline. Yes, they may be different companies, but they are not separate airlines, and the regional flights are integrated into the airline's schedule/timetable right alongside the airline's mainline flights. For this very reason, call signs, operating certificates, crews, etc. do not matter here at all.

    So for example, the legacy airlines in the United States and Canada (along with others as well) do not ever market their flights as the subsidiary/regional airline, regardless of what the call signs and the IATA/ICAO codes are. They're always listed as flights from the main airline, but aircraft are leased by the subsidiary regional airline for operations for that given airline. This goes for Encore, Jazz, Rouge, Mesa, ExpressJet, GoJet, Compass, Envoy, Republic, SkyWest, Horizon, Commutair, Trans States, etc. These flights that are operated by these regional carriers are not from separate airlines from the mainline carrier. They're just companies that lease regional aircraft to major the airlines.

    Also, airlines do not ever publish citations/references/sources (whatever you want to call them), for regional flights. So for example: if American Airlines decides to add a seasonal regional flight using a leased (American Eagle) from PHX to PDX, people would originally put a start date for this route, but there isn't a third party published reference to support this. Also please note that pretty much all regional aircraft are often transferred between one another. Take the present Horizon Air crisis for example. Since there is currently a major shortage of pilots, Alaska decided to lease a whole bunch of CRJ jets from SkyWest. As far as I know, Alaska isn't going to permanently keep those jets in their regional aircraft fleet forever, and once Alaska hires more pilots for Horizon, they will be given back to SkyWest and they'll then be distributed to other airlines that need them at that given time. Also, and most importantly, the long-standing consensus at Wikipedia is that using airline timetables and flight search engines in the Wikipeida articles to verify the regional flight's starting/resuming dates violate the following Wikipedia guideliens:


Anyone is welcome to participate in the discussion here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#Consolidating_Mainline_and_regional_sections_on_Airline_tables

I've also told the editors at Wikipedia to comment here if they want to.
No, "FA" in my username does not stand for "flight attendant"...
 
aviationjunky
Posts: 342
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:27 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 8:19 pm

SumChristianus wrote:
Time to start an Airpedia.org to fully show all of this information they are removing?


tbqh that would be quite helpful to anyone travelling and we would all be obsessed with it
LAS is Life
 
WWads
Posts: 282
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:18 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 8:39 pm

It sounds like some self-important people at Wikipedia wanted to force others to make a change just to make a change, instead of having a good reason.

Wikipedia has decayed in general in recent years, and moves like this continue to be additional nails in the coffin. Maybe someone should start a parallel Wiki for the purpose of having more detailed airport and airline route information.
Last edited by WWads on Wed Jan 24, 2018 8:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
alan3
Posts: 189
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2014 6:13 am

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 8:39 pm

I am getting sick of the Wikipedia nerds ruining things just for the sake of it. The idea that the terminal information made it a "travel guide" was ridiculous enough. Stating what airline parks its planes in what terminal is a factual statistic.

Regarding the regional brand tag, I didn’t realize Wikipedia was there to follow the marketing decisions of the airline and not fact. If there is no differentiation why do airlines paint their aircraft as “Express”, why do gate agents announce “United Express” and why do sites like Flightradar list the operating carrier not the marketing brand ?

Mark my words... the day will come very soon When the destination tables are removed altogether and the airport articles are just a table of the raw dimensions of the airport building.
Last edited by alan3 on Wed Jan 24, 2018 8:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
alasizon
Posts: 1414
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:57 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 8:56 pm

I happened to stumble upon this when I went looking for something the other day and knew darn well that some of those services weren't operated by Mainline. I get the theory behind being encyclopedic but other than AS/QX/OO; all of the services can be summarized as DL and DCI or UA and UAX.
Manager on Duty & Tower Planner
 
WWads
Posts: 282
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:18 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 8:57 pm

alan3 wrote:
I am getting so sick of the Wikipedia Nazis ruining things. The idea that the terminal information made it a "travel guide" was ridiculous enough. Stating what airline parks its planes in what terminal is a factual statistic.

FA9295 above says the airlines "do not ever market their flights as the subsidiary/regional airline". I didn't realize Wikipedia had to follow the marketing sales decisions of the airlines and not the factual data behind it. If there is no differentiation I wonder why airlines paint their aircraft as “Express”, “Connection”, etc.


I love how they want us to come and comment on the talk page. Why bother? The Wikipedia authoritarians have already ruled. Might as well lock this thread, and the talk page while they're at it.
 
User avatar
sergegva
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 9:12 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 8:58 pm

FA9295 wrote:
[...] the average person is not going to care about [...] terminal information.
[...] listing the terminals in the airlines and destinations tables makes the airport articles look like travel guides, not encyclopedia articles.

This is a point of view. The current consensus is maybe like this right now, but it can change if several users discuss this topic again, and convince the majority of contributors.

FA9295 wrote:
The long-standing consensus at Wikipedia is that using airline timetables and flight search engines in the Wikipeida articles to verify the regional flight's starting/resuming dates violate the following Wikipedia guideliens [...]

I am disappointed by the direction taken by wikipedia in recent years. Of course, sourcing informations is important, and the quality of these sources is also important. But in my opinion, and according to common sense I think, an unsourced or improperly sourced information that seems reasonably correct is better than no information at all. Like everywhere else, it's part of the readers' duty to check if an info is reliable or not. With Wikipedia, you can easily find who added an information, and when.

By the way, will the recent discussion about regional carriers have an impact on fleet's charts? I stopped updating them in en:wikipedia some years ago, because I was tired seeing some contributors removing untiringly Swiss Global Airline's aircraft from Swiss fleet's chart, easyJet Switzerland's aircraft from easyJet fleet's chart, and so on. Can we now consider that an aircraft fully branded with an airline's livery belongs to this airline's fleet?
 
User avatar
cvgComair
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:48 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 9:02 pm

alan3 wrote:
I am getting so sick of the Wikipedia Nazis ruining things. The idea that the terminal information made it a "travel guide" was ridiculous enough. Stating what airline parks its planes in what terminal is a factual statistic.

And, Wikipedia is not a list of factual statistics, which is exactly what a list of terminal assignments is. As for a travel guide, it was not "Wikipedia Nazis", there was a vote, and removing them won fare and square: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ion_tables) Here is a great example that people were using the info as a travel guide:
aviationjunky wrote:
SumChristianus wrote:
Time to start an Airpedia.org to fully show all of this information they are removing?


tbqh that would be quite helpful to anyone travelling and we would all be obsessed with it


alan3 wrote:
FA9295 above says the airlines "do not ever market their flights as the subsidiary/regional airline". I didn't realize Wikipedia had to follow the marketing sales decisions of the airlines and not the factual data behind it. If there is no differentiation I wonder why airlines paint their aircraft as “Express”, “Connection”, etc.

Wikipedia follows the consensus of its editors and the core policies. The airport articles are not a directory or a list of every bit of information about the airport, that is not the purpose on an encyclopedia. Again, would you like the tables in their new form or them removed completely, it really came down to those two choices. The tables in their old form were unencyclopedic and poorly sourced, there is no getting around Wikipedia's policies on citations and original research/primary sources. As an aviation enthusiast, I am not please to see the change, but this change will allow us to move towards destination tables that can stay in articles long term and are not going to be removed because of sourcing issues.
Next: PWM-JFK (Delta CRJ-900), JFK-CVG Delta CRJ-900)
DL FO, A319/320/332/333, B712/722/732/733/738/739/752/753/763/764/772/773/788, CRJ-100/2/7/9, ERJ-145/75, MD-88/90, S340
 
User avatar
cvgComair
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:48 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 9:06 pm

WWads wrote:
alan3 wrote:
I am getting so sick of the Wikipedia Nazis ruining things. The idea that the terminal information made it a "travel guide" was ridiculous enough. Stating what airline parks its planes in what terminal is a factual statistic.

FA9295 above says the airlines "do not ever market their flights as the subsidiary/regional airline". I didn't realize Wikipedia had to follow the marketing sales decisions of the airlines and not the factual data behind it. If there is no differentiation I wonder why airlines paint their aircraft as “Express”, “Connection”, etc.


I love how they want us to come and comment on the talk page. Why bother? The Wikipedia authoritarians have already ruled. Might as well lock this thread, and the talk page while they're at it.

Actually, we don't want you on the talk page if you don't understand the policies of Wikipedia. The request was to get Wikipedia editors (like myself) to try to explain the reason for removal on here. It is probably hard to understand if you are not well-knowledged in the policies.
Next: PWM-JFK (Delta CRJ-900), JFK-CVG Delta CRJ-900)
DL FO, A319/320/332/333, B712/722/732/733/738/739/752/753/763/764/772/773/788, CRJ-100/2/7/9, ERJ-145/75, MD-88/90, S340
 
User avatar
cvgComair
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:48 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 9:08 pm

sergegva wrote:
FA9295 wrote:
[...] the average person is not going to care about [...] terminal information.
[...] listing the terminals in the airlines and destinations tables makes the airport articles look like travel guides, not encyclopedia articles.

This is a point of view. The current consensus is maybe like this right now, but it can change if several users discuss this topic again, and convince the majority of contributors.

FA9295 wrote:
The long-standing consensus at Wikipedia is that using airline timetables and flight search engines in the Wikipeida articles to verify the regional flight's starting/resuming dates violate the following Wikipedia guideliens [...]

I am disappointed by the direction taken by wikipedia in recent years. Of course, sourcing informations is important, and the quality of these sources is also important. But in my opinion, and according to common sense I think, an unsourced or improperly sourced information that seems reasonably correct is better than no information at all. Like everywhere else, it's part of the readers' duty to check if an info is reliable or not. With Wikipedia, you can easily find who added an information, and when.

By the way, will the recent discussion about regional carriers have an impact on fleet's charts? I stopped updating them in en:wikipedia some years ago, because I was tired seeing some contributors removing untiringly Swiss Global Airline's aircraft from Swiss fleet's chart, easyJet Switzerland's aircraft from easyJet fleet's chart, and so on. Can we now consider that an aircraft fully branded with an airline's livery belongs to this airline's fleet?

Yeah, but that is not how it works. According to Wikipedia policy, information that is factually incorrect by common sense, but backed up by sources, is preferred. I know, it sounds ridiculous, but it is a core policy and nothing can be done to change it. I hate it as an editor, but it is the reality of Wikipedia.

On your second part, this decision only applies to Airport articles, not aviation content as a whole. That is part of WP:Airlines, this decision came from WP:Airports.
Last edited by cvgComair on Wed Jan 24, 2018 9:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Next: PWM-JFK (Delta CRJ-900), JFK-CVG Delta CRJ-900)
DL FO, A319/320/332/333, B712/722/732/733/738/739/752/753/763/764/772/773/788, CRJ-100/2/7/9, ERJ-145/75, MD-88/90, S340
 
alan3
Posts: 189
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2014 6:13 am

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 9:10 pm

cvgComair wrote:
alan3 wrote:
I am getting so sick of the Wikipedia Nazis ruining things. The idea that the terminal information made it a "travel guide" was ridiculous enough. Stating what airline parks its planes in what terminal is a factual statistic.

And, Wikipedia is not a list of factual statistics, which is exactly what a list of terminal assignments is. As for a travel guide, it was not "Wikipedia Nazis", there was a vote, and removing them won fare and square: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ion_tables) Here is a great example that people were using the info as a travel guide:
aviationjunky wrote:
SumChristianus wrote:
Time to start an Airpedia.org to fully show all of this information they are removing?


tbqh that would be quite helpful to anyone travelling and we would all be obsessed with it


alan3 wrote:
FA9295 above says the airlines "do not ever market their flights as the subsidiary/regional airline". I didn't realize Wikipedia had to follow the marketing sales decisions of the airlines and not the factual data behind it. If there is no differentiation I wonder why airlines paint their aircraft as “Express”, “Connection”, etc.

Wikipedia follows the consensus of its editors and the core policies. The airport articles are not a directory or a list of every bit of information about the airport, that is not the purpose on an encyclopedia. Again, would you like the tables in their new form or them removed completely, it really came down to those two choices. The tables in their old form were unencyclopedic and poorly sourced, there is no getting around Wikipedia's policies on citations and original research/primary sources. As an aviation enthusiast, I am not please to see the change, but this change will allow us to move towards destination tables that can stay in articles long term and are not going to be removed because of sourcing issues.



So at the end of the day what is really relevant?

When the airport was built, how many passengers and how big it is. That’s it.

I just checked several airport articles. They have ground transportation information, airport train lines, driving directions, how many restaurants in the airport, if there’s a hotel attached, etc.

How is that information not a “travel guide” too???

You shouldn’t need Wikipedia tell you how to get to the airport yet most airport articles have driving and transportation information.

Yes maybe there was a vote but the vote was only held because some busybody decided to change something that wasn’t a problem.

Unless the articles state pure raw information like runway length and square footage, almost anything is arguably a “travel guide”.
Last edited by alan3 on Wed Jan 24, 2018 9:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Trk1
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2017 5:37 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 9:10 pm

Everyone is over reacting. The main carrier is what we need to know. When you check hotels you what to know the chain name not the
Actual owner operator of the hotel
 
User avatar
mke717spotter
Posts: 2077
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 9:32 am

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 9:11 pm

I think the changes are dumb and petty, the same goes for the earlier changes that removed airline-terminal locations. The pages were quite useful but now it seems like they're being changed just for the sake of changing it. If it wasn't for the MKE Wikipedia page I wouldn't have known that AS and DL are both upgrading SEA-MKE to mainline this summer!
Will you watch the Cleveland Browns and the Detroit Lions on Sunday? Only if coach Eric Mangini resigned after a loss.
 
User avatar
cvgComair
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:48 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 9:13 pm

alan3 wrote:
cvgComair wrote:
alan3 wrote:
I am getting so sick of the Wikipedia Nazis ruining things. The idea that the terminal information made it a "travel guide" was ridiculous enough. Stating what airline parks its planes in what terminal is a factual statistic.

And, Wikipedia is not a list of factual statistics, which is exactly what a list of terminal assignments is. As for a travel guide, it was not "Wikipedia Nazis", there was a vote, and removing them won fare and square: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ion_tables) Here is a great example that people were using the info as a travel guide:
aviationjunky wrote:

tbqh that would be quite helpful to anyone travelling and we would all be obsessed with it


alan3 wrote:
FA9295 above says the airlines "do not ever market their flights as the subsidiary/regional airline". I didn't realize Wikipedia had to follow the marketing sales decisions of the airlines and not the factual data behind it. If there is no differentiation I wonder why airlines paint their aircraft as “Express”, “Connection”, etc.

Wikipedia follows the consensus of its editors and the core policies. The airport articles are not a directory or a list of every bit of information about the airport, that is not the purpose on an encyclopedia. Again, would you like the tables in their new form or them removed completely, it really came down to those two choices. The tables in their old form were unencyclopedic and poorly sourced, there is no getting around Wikipedia's policies on citations and original research/primary sources. As an aviation enthusiast, I am not please to see the change, but this change will allow us to move towards destination tables that can stay in articles long term and are not going to be removed because of sourcing issues.



So at the end of the day what is really relevant?

When the airport was built, how many passengers and how big it is. That’s it.

I just checked several airport articles. They have ground transportation information, airport train lines, driving directions, how many restaurants in the airport, if there’s a hotel attached, etc.

How is that information not a “travel guide” too???

Yes maybe there was a vote but the vote was only held because some busybody decided to change something that wasn’t a problem.

Unless the articles state pure raw information like runway length and square footage, almost anything is arguably a “travel guide”.


This is a summary of what is to be included in an airport article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _(Airports)

This is the passage on ground transportation:
Access
Describe the various transportation methods that are available to reach the airport including:
Bus
Car
Train
However, be careful not to violate WP:NOTRAVEL by including detailed information about bus numbers, specific train services and the like.

Currently, this is violated by many pages, but this is currently being worked on. I suspect you will see much of this information disappear from pages in the future.

The history of an airport is really what should be in the articles. The extent of service (destination tables), statistics, and facilities (runways, etc) are the supplementary material. Everything else really should not be in them and belongs at https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Main_Page.
Next: PWM-JFK (Delta CRJ-900), JFK-CVG Delta CRJ-900)
DL FO, A319/320/332/333, B712/722/732/733/738/739/752/753/763/764/772/773/788, CRJ-100/2/7/9, ERJ-145/75, MD-88/90, S340
 
User avatar
sergegva
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 9:12 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 9:33 pm

cvgComair wrote:
Yeah, but that is not how it works. According to Wikipedia policy, information that is factually incorrect by common sense, but backed up by sources, is preferred. I know, it sounds ridiculous, but it is a core policy and nothing can be done to change it. I hate it as an editor, but it is the reality of Wikipedia.

You named it: it sounds ridiculous.

cvgComair wrote:
However, be careful not to violate WP:NOTRAVEL by including detailed information about bus numbers, specific train services and the like.

Currently, this is violated by many pages, but this is currently being worked on. I suspect you will see much of this information disappear from pages in the future.

What always amaze me is that you will easily find people who will give hours of their free time to "work on" removing useful informations, just because it is wikipedia "core policies" :sarcastic: If there was nobody to do the job, core policies or not, these informations would remain.
Last edited by sergegva on Wed Jan 24, 2018 9:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
alan3
Posts: 189
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2014 6:13 am

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 9:36 pm

cvgComair wrote:
alan3 wrote:
cvgComair wrote:

This is a summary of what is to be included in an airport article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _(Airports)

This is the passage on ground transportation:
Access
Describe the various transportation methods that are available to reach the airport including:
Bus
Car
Train


So....Wikipedia can tell people how they can get to the airport, but not which terminal to go inside once they get there?

Given your information that Wikipedia is neither for factual lists nor travel information, there is no reason to expect that the Destination tables, Annual traffic statistics or Top destinations served tables should be kept either.

I'll place a wager here that the destination tables are gone within the year.... because people should go on the airline or airport timetables for that information right?
 
Yflyer
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 4:05 am

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:00 pm

I see I'm in the minority here, but I used to actually find the way Wikipedia split up mainline and regional flights a little bit annoying. I would often be curious about how many destinations say Delta serves from XYZ, including both mainline and regional. And there would only be like two destinations listed for Delta Air Lines. But surely there must be more than that. Oh, there are five more listed under Delta Connection. Except one of them sees a mix of both mainline and regional flights and is duplicated in both entries. I think it's much more clear and concise to just list them all under the marketing carrier. If I want to know specific details about whether they're mainline or regional, which specific regional operates the flight, what kind of aircraft they use, etc., I'll go look at the airline's timetable.

cvgComair wrote:
This is a summary of what is to be included in an airport article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... de/Layout_


Straying a little bit off topic, but seeing as how the guide also includes guidelines for the "accidents and incidents" section, I also found it annoying how that section often included extremely minor incidents, or ones that only remotely involved the airport. I see it's been removed now, but for example the page for SMF used to list PSA flight 182 among its accidents and incidents simply because the flight happened to originate there. But, as I'm sure most of us know, the actual accident occurred near SAN.
 
User avatar
Midwestindy
Posts: 3078
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 3:56 am

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:01 pm

cvgComair wrote:
alan3 wrote:
cvgComair wrote:
And, Wikipedia is not a list of factual statistics, which is exactly what a list of terminal assignments is. As for a travel guide, it was not "Wikipedia Nazis", there was a vote, and removing them won fare and square: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ion_tables) Here is a great example that people were using the info as a travel guide:



Wikipedia follows the consensus of its editors and the core policies. The airport articles are not a directory or a list of every bit of information about the airport, that is not the purpose on an encyclopedia. Again, would you like the tables in their new form or them removed completely, it really came down to those two choices. The tables in their old form were unencyclopedic and poorly sourced, there is no getting around Wikipedia's policies on citations and original research/primary sources. As an aviation enthusiast, I am not please to see the change, but this change will allow us to move towards destination tables that can stay in articles long term and are not going to be removed because of sourcing issues.



So at the end of the day what is really relevant?

When the airport was built, how many passengers and how big it is. That’s it.

I just checked several airport articles. They have ground transportation information, airport train lines, driving directions, how many restaurants in the airport, if there’s a hotel attached, etc.

How is that information not a “travel guide” too???

Yes maybe there was a vote but the vote was only held because some busybody decided to change something that wasn’t a problem.

Unless the articles state pure raw information like runway length and square footage, almost anything is arguably a “travel guide”.


This is a summary of what is to be included in an airport article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _(Airports)

This is the passage on ground transportation:
Access
Describe the various transportation methods that are available to reach the airport including:
Bus
Car
Train
However, be careful not to violate WP:NOTRAVEL by including detailed information about bus numbers, specific train services and the like.

Currently, this is violated by many pages, but this is currently being worked on. I suspect you will see much of this information disappear from pages in the future.

The history of an airport is really what should be in the articles. The extent of service (destination tables), statistics, and facilities (runways, etc) are the supplementary material. Everything else really should not be in them and belongs at https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Main_Page.


(Before I say anything, this is not directed towards you)

This underlines the problems wiki has, there are so many arbitrary rules that impede the spread of useful information that passengers or the casual reader might like to know.

I'd wager that a majority of people going on an airports wikipedia page aren't looking to find the square footage of the airport or which architecture firm was contracted to construct the airport, they are looking on an airports wikipedia page to find information like where can you fly nonstop, which routes does X airline serve, which bus/train routes go to the airport, and before it was taken away which airlines are at which gates.
DL DM, AA Gold 2018: AMS, ATL, AUS, BOS, BWI, CDG, CLT, CMN, DCA, DFW, DTW, DXB, EWR, FLL, FRA, HAV, HPN, JFK, JNB, IAD, IAH, IND, LAX, LGA, LHR, LOS, MAD, MCO, MIA, MSP, ORD, PBI, PHL, PVD, SAN, SEA, SJD, SLC, SFO, STL, TPA, TXL, ZRH....Loading....
 
Yflyer
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 4:05 am

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:05 pm

alan3 wrote:
So....Wikipedia can tell people how they can get to the airport, but not which terminal to go inside once they get there?


More like, it can tell you that it's possible to get to the airport by bus, but not which specific bus you should take. And it can tell you that the airport has two terminals, but not which terminal you should go to.
 
User avatar
cvgComair
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:48 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:08 pm

Yflyer wrote:
alan3 wrote:
So....Wikipedia can tell people how they can get to the airport, but not which terminal to go inside once they get there?

More like, it can tell you that it's possible to get to the airport by bus, but not which specific bus you should take. And it can tell you that the airport has two terminals, but not which terminal you should go to.

Yes! That is exactly right!
Next: PWM-JFK (Delta CRJ-900), JFK-CVG Delta CRJ-900)
DL FO, A319/320/332/333, B712/722/732/733/738/739/752/753/763/764/772/773/788, CRJ-100/2/7/9, ERJ-145/75, MD-88/90, S340

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Gemuser, L410Turbolet, opticalilyushin, TheF15Ace and 47 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos