Janj
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 3:35 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:09 pm

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

Who cares? Why is having more information bad?
 
User avatar
compensateme
Posts: 2470
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:17 am

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:11 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 don't understand your logic -- this change is long overdue. Would you tell somebody you ate at McDonald's or Big Mack LLC? Do you get your package deliveries from Fast Package Inc. or FedEx Ground? Do you stay at a Marriott, or Irvine Hotel Partners LLC? And yet for some reason, the a.net community gets their tighty whities bunched up over the thought of somebody suggesting Delta operates CLE-LGA. Here's the problem: DL DOES operate CLE-LGA, although they contract out the actual flying.

Delta makes the decision to sell the flights & at what price. Delta schedules the flights. Delta sets the service standard. Delta will frequently change operating carriers to best batch product/demand. It's not ExpressJet -- it's DL. After all, tomorrow it might be GoJet. And finally Wikipedia is recognizing it.
If you are an American who drives an auto built by a foreign-owned company yet complains about your favorite airline buying Airbus, then you are nothing more than a whiny hypocrite.
 
OB1504
Posts: 3327
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 5:10 am

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:13 pm

FA9295 wrote:
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.


An average person is absolutely going to care about what terminals/concourses airlines fly out of. It was easier to just check the Wikipedia article than have to scavenge through some of the more poorly-designed airport websites trying to figure out where my flight is leaving from.
 
User avatar
cvgComair
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:48 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:18 pm

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

Who cares? Why is having more information bad?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ic_journal, bullet #2.
Next: PWM-LGA (Delta CRJ-900), LGA-CVG (Delta CRJ-900)
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: 1805
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:48 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:19 pm

OB1504 wrote:
FA9295 wrote:
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.


An average person is absolutely going to care about what terminals/concourses airlines fly out of. It was easier to just check the Wikipedia article than have to scavenge through some of the more poorly-designed airport websites trying to figure out where my flight is leaving from.

And that is a travel guide, which Wikipedia is not.
Next: PWM-LGA (Delta CRJ-900), LGA-CVG (Delta CRJ-900)
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: 1805
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:48 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:19 pm

compensateme wrote:
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 don't understand your logic -- this change is long overdue. Would you tell somebody you ate at McDonald's or Big Mack LLC? Do you get your package deliveries from Fast Package Inc. or FedEx Ground? Do you stay at a Marriott, or Irvine Hotel Partners LLC? And yet for some reason, the a.net community gets their tighty whities bunched up over the thought of somebody suggesting Delta operates CLE-LGA. Here's the problem: DL DOES operate CLE-LGA, although they contract out the actual flying.

Delta makes the decision to sell the flights & at what price. Delta schedules the flights. Delta sets the service standard. Delta will frequently change operating carriers to best batch product/demand. It's not ExpressJet -- it's DL. After all, tomorrow it might be GoJet. And finally Wikipedia is recognizing it.

:checkmark:
Next: PWM-LGA (Delta CRJ-900), LGA-CVG (Delta CRJ-900)
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
 
WWads
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:18 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:25 pm

compensateme wrote:
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 don't understand your logic -- this change is long overdue. Would you tell somebody you ate at McDonald's or Big Mack LLC? Do you get your package deliveries from Fast Package Inc. or FedEx Ground? Do you stay at a Marriott, or Irvine Hotel Partners LLC? And yet for some reason, the a.net community gets their tighty whities bunched up over the thought of somebody suggesting Delta operates CLE-LGA. Here's the problem: DL DOES operate CLE-LGA, although they contract out the actual flying.

Delta makes the decision to sell the flights & at what price. Delta schedules the flights. Delta sets the service standard. Delta will frequently change operating carriers to best batch product/demand. It's not ExpressJet -- it's DL. After all, tomorrow it might be GoJet. And finally Wikipedia is recognizing it.


They'd care if one McDonalds had better quality food than another, based on ownership. In this case, I argue that there's a huge difference between a CRJ and a 757, and passengers do care about that difference.

Yes, a DL RJ flight isn't significantly different from a mainline flight from DL's point of view, but that doesn't mean that they're the same. Per DOT rules, passengers have a right to a refund if DL changes a flight from Endeavor to GoJet, or from mainline to RJ. The government seems to think that there's enough of a difference to warrant something as drastic as a full refund.

And no, DL DOES NOT operate CLE-LGA. Just call a DL phone rep and try to buy that flight. They will say "DLXXXX, operated by ExpressJet..."

Regardless, this debate seems to be over thanks to Wikipedia's arcane rules. All hail Wikipedia's all-powerful editors who seem to know what's best for us. :roll:
 
User avatar
Super80Fan
Posts: 1001
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2017 4:14 am

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:35 pm

While I get the reasons behind it, a slippery slope was already created by removing the terminal/air-side/gate info, and now the separate regional operations.

How long until they remove the destinations each airline serves from the airport, or even the airlines that serve there at all?

Wikipedia has ALWAYS been run by power hungry individuals who don't contribute much in real life, so they get their kicks online.
RIP McDonnell Douglas
 
WWads
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:18 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:42 pm

Super80Fan wrote:
While I get the reasons behind it, a slippery slope was already created by removing the terminal/air-side/gate info, and now the separate regional operations.

How long until they remove the destinations each airline serves from the airport, or even the airlines that serve there at all?

Wikipedia has ALWAYS been run by power hungry individuals who don't contribute much in real life, so they get their kicks online.


Based on everything I've read here and over there, they might as well make every airport article a stub.

After all, we wouldn't want any of these pages to remotely resemble a travel guide...
 
User avatar
cvgComair
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:48 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:43 pm

WWads wrote:
Super80Fan wrote:
While I get the reasons behind it, a slippery slope was already created by removing the terminal/air-side/gate info, and now the separate regional operations.

How long until they remove the destinations each airline serves from the airport, or even the airlines that serve there at all?

Wikipedia has ALWAYS been run by power hungry individuals who don't contribute much in real life, so they get their kicks online.

Based on everything I've read here and over there, they might as well make every airport article a stub.

After all, we wouldn't want any of these pages to remotely resemble a travel guide...

Remember, part of the reason some of us back this was to keep the destination tables alive. I think we have satisfied pretty much all of the requirements to make them "encyclopedic", so I doubt we will see them go away completely. There were also proposals to remove all seasonal routes and charters without explicit sources, but that has not gained traction. The vote on wether to keep the tables was pretty unanimous for keeping them, I don't think that should be a concern.
Next: PWM-LGA (Delta CRJ-900), LGA-CVG (Delta CRJ-900)
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
Super80Fan
Posts: 1001
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2017 4:14 am

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:45 pm

WWads wrote:
Super80Fan wrote:
While I get the reasons behind it, a slippery slope was already created by removing the terminal/air-side/gate info, and now the separate regional operations.

How long until they remove the destinations each airline serves from the airport, or even the airlines that serve there at all?

Wikipedia has ALWAYS been run by power hungry individuals who don't contribute much in real life, so they get their kicks online.


Based on everything I've read here and over there, they might as well make every airport article a stub.

After all, we wouldn't want any of these pages to remotely resemble a travel guide...


Exactly! I was reading their "Wikipedia is not a travel guide" rule, and it seems that can be applied to basically anything on the airport articles...
RIP McDonnell Douglas
 
User avatar
compensateme
Posts: 2470
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:17 am

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:47 pm

WWads wrote:
They'd care if one McDonalds had better quality food than another, based on ownership.


:confused: Not at all the point, of course, but McD's still reigns as the most popular restaurant in the country.

In this case, I argue that there's a huge difference between a CRJ and a 757, and passengers do care about that difference.


Is that really relevant? UA operates CRJ/ERJ alongside 739 on a plethora of routes, as did AA & DL before they began phasing out 50-seaters -- for economic reasons, not passenger preference.

Yes, a DL RJ flight isn't significantly different from a mainline flight from DL's point of view, but that doesn't mean that they're the same. Per DOT rules, passengers have a right to a refund if DL changes a flight from Endeavor to GoJet, or from mainline to RJ. The government seems to think that there's enough of a difference to warrant something as drastic as a full refund.


The government also requires airlines to advertise their fares inclusive of government taxes & fees. I'd argue that both are examples of burdening regulation.

And no, DL DOES NOT operate CLE-LGA. Just call a DL phone rep and try to buy that flight. They will say "DLXXXX, operated by Endeavor Air..."


Yes, DL operates CLE-LGA; they just contract out the flying. The only reason the DL phone rep tells you that is because of burdenson government regulation. FedEx isn't required to tell you that portions of your delivery may be outsourced, Verizon isn't required to tell you the same about your cell phone service. The airline industry needs better lobbyists.

Regardless, this debate seems to be over thanks to Wikipedia's arcane rules. All hail Wikipedia's all-powerful editors who seem to know what's best for us. :roll:


Wikipedia finally does something right!
If you are an American who drives an auto built by a foreign-owned company yet complains about your favorite airline buying Airbus, then you are nothing more than a whiny hypocrite.
 
WWads
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:18 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:47 pm

cvgComair wrote:
WWads wrote:
Super80Fan wrote:
While I get the reasons behind it, a slippery slope was already created by removing the terminal/air-side/gate info, and now the separate regional operations.

How long until they remove the destinations each airline serves from the airport, or even the airlines that serve there at all?

Wikipedia has ALWAYS been run by power hungry individuals who don't contribute much in real life, so they get their kicks online.

Based on everything I've read here and over there, they might as well make every airport article a stub.

After all, we wouldn't want any of these pages to remotely resemble a travel guide...

Remember, part of the reason some of us back this was to keep the destination tables alive. I think we have satisfied pretty much all of the requirements to make them "encyclopedic", so I doubt we will see them go away completely. There were also proposals to remove all seasonal routes and charters without explicit sources, but that has not gained traction. The vote on wether to keep the tables was pretty unanimous for keeping them, I don't think that should be a concern.


To be clear, my criticisms are directed at the people who would have forced the changes against the wishes of the editors who actually maintain these pages. Rules are open to interpretation, and their interpretation seems to be excessively legalistic to me.
 
User avatar
cvgComair
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:48 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:49 pm

WWads wrote:
cvgComair wrote:
WWads wrote:
Based on everything I've read here and over there, they might as well make every airport article a stub.

After all, we wouldn't want any of these pages to remotely resemble a travel guide...

Remember, part of the reason some of us back this was to keep the destination tables alive. I think we have satisfied pretty much all of the requirements to make them "encyclopedic", so I doubt we will see them go away completely. There were also proposals to remove all seasonal routes and charters without explicit sources, but that has not gained traction. The vote on wether to keep the tables was pretty unanimous for keeping them, I don't think that should be a concern.

To be clear, my criticisms are directed at the people who would have forced the changes against the wishes of the editors who actually maintain these pages. Rules are open to interpretation, and their interpretation seems to be excessively legalistic to me.

I understand what you are saying. Back when this started, there is actually a policy to "ignore all rules" if it inhibits the ability to make constructive edits. I tried to push this, but with no avail.
Next: PWM-LGA (Delta CRJ-900), LGA-CVG (Delta CRJ-900)
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
NYPECO
Posts: 395
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2015 12:55 am

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Wed Jan 24, 2018 11:06 pm

The Wikipedia talk page is the most confusing thing to read, it's not an actual forum with individual posts.
 
User avatar
FA9295
Posts: 915
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:44 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:17 am

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


That's what WikiVoyage is for.
Next flights:
PDX-LAX-MIA (American)
MCO-DFW-PDX (American)

PDX-MSP-PDX (Delta)
 
User avatar
FA9295
Posts: 915
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:44 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:19 am

NYPECO wrote:
The Wikipedia talk page is the most confusing thing to read, it's not an actual forum with individual posts.


Yes, it is very confusing. They don't organize them by individual posts, but rather by individual topics. People will then just comment under the original poster's comment...
Next flights:
PDX-LAX-MIA (American)
MCO-DFW-PDX (American)

PDX-MSP-PDX (Delta)
 
User avatar
FA9295
Posts: 915
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:44 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:27 am

OB1504 wrote:
FA9295 wrote:
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.


An average person is absolutely going to care about what terminals/concourses airlines fly out of. It was easier to just check the Wikipedia article than have to scavenge through some of the more poorly-designed airport websites trying to figure out where my flight is leaving from.


Wikipedia is not for checking the status of your flight. Wikipedia is not a travel guide; it's an encyclopedia. There are plenty other available venues for that. If you check in online, the airline will tell you what terminal/concourse you're departing from.
Next flights:
PDX-LAX-MIA (American)
MCO-DFW-PDX (American)

PDX-MSP-PDX (Delta)
 
WWads
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:18 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:35 am

FA9295 wrote:
OB1504 wrote:
FA9295 wrote:
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.


An average person is absolutely going to care about what terminals/concourses airlines fly out of. It was easier to just check the Wikipedia article than have to scavenge through some of the more poorly-designed airport websites trying to figure out where my flight is leaving from.


Wikipedia is not for checking the status of your flight. Wikipedia is not a travel guide; it's an encyclopedia. There are plenty other available venues for that. If you check in online, the airline will tell you what terminal/concourse you're departing from.


I dunno, the CVG page has the airport's address on it. Seems like it would be more appropriate for people to consult Google Maps to figure out where the airport is located. Someone should remove that pesky address.
 
User avatar
FA9295
Posts: 915
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:44 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:36 am

WWads wrote:
cvgComair wrote:
WWads wrote:
To be clear, my criticisms are directed at the people who would have forced the changes against the wishes of the editors who actually maintain these pages. Rules are open to interpretation, and their interpretation seems to be excessively legalistic to me.

While rules are open to interpretation, there still has to be some sort of consensus. You can't make everybody happy. There are going to be people who agree and disagree with pretty much any issue debated about Wikipedia, and that's just the unfortunate way of the world. We had a vote, and the consensus was to remove the regional carriers from the airlines and destinations tables. There's obviously lots of people who disagree with this. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of it either, but I do understand why the consensus was made.

I think "the straw that broke the camel's back" on this issue was dealing with Alaska's regional flights. It was getting very tedious to update the tables with both SkyWest and Horizon, and if they are all lumped together with Alaska's mainline operations, it'll be much easier to keep track of when new routes start and when other routes end.
Next flights:
PDX-LAX-MIA (American)
MCO-DFW-PDX (American)

PDX-MSP-PDX (Delta)
 
Wingtips56
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:26 am

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:44 am

I'm with FA9295; get your flight information from the airline. Flight status, check-in locations, check-in times, terminals, equipment, etc. And whoever books you (in the U.S.A. anyway) is required to disclose the operating carrier, including wet leases at time of booking and in print at time of ticketing. That's not information I would expect an informal information site like Wikipedia to be responsible for, nor is that where I would go to look it up.
I look at the Wikipedia airport pages for entertainment and general knowledge, but I wouldn't go blindly out to the airport ready to fly with only Wiki as my source: I go with my airline paperwork in hand/downloaded to a device.

Perhaps Wikipedia was understandably concerned about liabilities for information on it's site if it turned out to be wrong and a passenger missed a flight; e.g., lawsuits in this litigious country.
Worked for WestAir, Apollo Airways, Desert Pacific, Western, AirCal and American Airlines (Retired). My Flight Memory: 178 airports, 89 airlines, 71 a/c types, 397 routes, 56 countries (by air), 6 continents. 1,101,154 miles, as a passenger.
 
BAINY3
Posts: 117
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:47 am

I kind of don't mind them combining regional and mainline, because (among other things) it was hard to tell if a specific destination was *really* seasonal or if it was truly year-round and just alternated between mainline and regional. There are even some destinations out there that really do have a service gap, use regionals during the shoulder season, and go mainline during peak season; but there are other destinations that simply alternate between mainline and regional with no overall service gap.

This was even messier when they had it broken down by specific operating carrier. So many destinations at MSP, for one example, are frequently switched back and forth between SkyWest and Endeavor and it was making the tables very messy.

But I agree that terminal listings should remain. Those were actually very useful for analyzing connections, especially at a place like O'Hare, where *some* foreign flag carriers depart from the main terminals and only arrive at the international terminal, but *other* foreign flag carriers serve the international terminal exclusively. Since one must leave security to transfer from the main terminals to the international terminal, this was very helpful information to figure out if an advertised connection was actually feasible or not.

Now, sometimes this information can be found in the descriptive portion of the Wikipedia article (for example LAX and JFK articles describe who uses each terminal, even though this isn't listed in the airlines & destinations table), but other times this information is not there. Then you have to find the airport's website and dig for the information yourself, which is annoying.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 995
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:55 am

Wingtips56 wrote:
I'm with FA9295; get your flight information from the airline. Flight status, check-in locations, check-in times, terminals, equipment, etc. And whoever books you (in the U.S.A. anyway) is required to disclose the operating carrier, including wet leases at time of booking and in print at time of ticketing. That's not information I would expect an informal information site like Wikipedia to be responsible for, nor is that where I would go to look it up.
I look at the Wikipedia airport pages for entertainment and general knowledge, but I wouldn't go blindly out to the airport ready to fly with only Wiki as my source:
:checkmark:

Perhaps Wikipedia was understandably concerned about liabilities for information on it's site if it turned out to be wrong and a passenger missed a flight; e.g., lawsuits in this litigious country.

:yes:
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
FA9295
Posts: 915
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:44 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:10 am

BAINY3 wrote:
Now, sometimes this information can be found in the descriptive portion of the Wikipedia article (for example LAX and JFK articles describe who uses each terminal, even though this isn't listed in the airlines & destinations table), but other times this information is not there. Then you have to find the airport's website and dig for the information yourself, which is annoying.

I do think that the articles should contain descriptive information about the terminals, but having them in the tables made it seem like a directory, rather than an informational table.

BAINY3 wrote:
But I agree that terminal listings should remain. Those were actually very useful for analyzing connections, especially at a place like O'Hare, where *some* foreign flag carriers depart from the main terminals and only arrive at the international terminal, but *other* foreign flag carriers serve the international terminal exclusively. Since one must leave security to transfer from the main terminals to the international terminal, this was very helpful information to figure out if an advertised connection was actually feasible or not.

I understand the need to figure out this information, and it is indeed very useful. But here's the issue: Wikipedia should not be used for "analyzing connections", and "figuring [sic] out if an advertised connection was actually feasible or not". Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It doesn't, and shouldn't provide that kind of information. There are other venues for this, such as WikiVoyage, or as I said earlier, checking with the airline themselves what terminal(s) your flight arrives/departs from.

Midwestindy wrote:
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.

People should not be going to Wikipedia to look for what airlines are at what gates. As I said above, there are other venues for this, such as WikiVoyage, or checking with the airline themselves what terminal(s) your flight arrives/departs from.
Next flights:
PDX-LAX-MIA (American)
MCO-DFW-PDX (American)

PDX-MSP-PDX (Delta)
 
ADrum23
Posts: 1712
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 11:54 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:11 am

Wow, this sure has escalated.........

Look, I'm sorry, but policy is policy. I don't like a lot of Wikipedia's policies, but it is what it is.

If you have an issue, take it up with one of these Wikipedia editors: Garretka, Andrewgprout or Sunnya343. Those are the current ringleaders that seem to be enforcing all of the airline page policies.
 
StrandedAtMKG
Posts: 249
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2015 5:51 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:33 am

FA9295 wrote:
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.


I don't understand this mentality of "no one cares." Some people obviously care, or no one would be making an issue out of it. If we were talking about an old-school encyclopedia printed on dead trees I would understand not printing this information for economic reasons (and because it cannot be updated regularly), but the beauty of Wikipedia is that the size of it is essentially limitless and it can be updated in a matter of seconds. I don't understand why the Powers That Be have not chosen to err on the side of more information rather than less.
 
zackary747
Posts: 338
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2017 10:41 am

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:35 am

Honestly, I am okay with this. It keeps the tables CLEANER and it makes it less tedious of moving things back and forth from the express and mainline sections. Not to mention how often wrong information gets inserted as such.

Also, some tables get EXTREMELY long with the extra things added in.

Wikipedia wants to stay general. In order to do that, if you have to only list the parent company. Aka the general information.

I do disagree with the terminal information, but there's nothing I can do about that.
Indianapolis Airport Spotter
 
RamblinMan
Posts: 966
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 3:57 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:34 am

I fail to see how giving information about carriers and destinations isn't "encyclopedic."

I'll use my home airport, CHA, for an example.

Saying that DL has mainline to ATL and conx to DTW and ATL is a simple statement of fact. How is that not enyclopedic information?

Saying that you should try to book one of the mainline options because the MD-88 is better than the CRJ or that the CRJ flights are cancelled more often would constitute a "travel guide."

ADrum23 wrote:
Wow, this sure has escalated.........

Look, I'm sorry, but policy is policy. I don't like a lot of Wikipedia's policies, but it is what it is.

If you have an issue, take it up with one of these Wikipedia editors: Garretka, Andrewgprout or Sunnya343. Those are the current ringleaders that seem to be enforcing all of the airline page policies.


How, exactly, is one to contact those individuals?

I'm not at all happy about this change, and worry that this removal of information will continue. I wasn't particularly upset when they did away with the terminals, and honestly this isn't the end of the world. But the next step is removing all airline and destination information entirely, which I'm afraid will happen.
 
zackary747
Posts: 338
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2017 10:41 am

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:37 am

RamblinMan wrote:
I fail to see how giving information about carriers and destinations isn't "encyclopedic."

I'll use my home airport, CHA, for an example.

Saying that DL has mainline to ATL and conx to DTW and ATL is a simple statement of fact. How is that not enyclopedic information?

Saying that you should try to book one of the mainline options because the MD-88 is better than the CRJ or that the CRJ flights are cancelled more often would constitute a "travel guide."

ADrum23 wrote:
Wow, this sure has escalated.........

Look, I'm sorry, but policy is policy. I don't like a lot of Wikipedia's policies, but it is what it is.

If you have an issue, take it up with one of these Wikipedia editors: Garretka, Andrewgprout or Sunnya343. Those are the current ringleaders that seem to be enforcing all of the airline page policies.


How, exactly, is one to contact those individuals?

I'm not at all happy about this change, and worry that this removal of information will continue. I wasn't particularly upset when they did away with the terminals, and honestly this isn't the end of the world. But the next step is removing all airline and destination information entirely, which I'm afraid will happen.


I worry about that too. Honestly, those tables are the ONLY things keeping those airport pages relevant.
Indianapolis Airport Spotter
 
WWads
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:18 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:43 am

RamblinMan wrote:
I fail to see how giving information about carriers and destinations isn't "encyclopedic."

I'll use my home airport, CHA, for an example.

Saying that DL has mainline to ATL and conx to DTW and ATL is a simple statement of fact. How is that not enyclopedic information?

Saying that you should try to book one of the mainline options because the MD-88 is better than the CRJ or that the CRJ flights are cancelled more often would constitute a "travel guide."

ADrum23 wrote:
Wow, this sure has escalated.........

Look, I'm sorry, but policy is policy. I don't like a lot of Wikipedia's policies, but it is what it is.

If you have an issue, take it up with one of these Wikipedia editors: Garretka, Andrewgprout or Sunnya343. Those are the current ringleaders that seem to be enforcing all of the airline page policies.


How, exactly, is one to contact those individuals?

I'm not at all happy about this change, and worry that this removal of information will continue. I wasn't particularly upset when they did away with the terminals, and honestly this isn't the end of the world. But the next step is removing all airline and destination information entirely, which I'm afraid will happen.


They can probably be found in their mothers' basements.
 
ADrum23
Posts: 1712
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 11:54 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:54 am

RamblinMan wrote:
I fail to see how giving information about carriers and destinations isn't "encyclopedic."

I'll use my home airport, CHA, for an example.

Saying that DL has mainline to ATL and conx to DTW and ATL is a simple statement of fact. How is that not enyclopedic information?

Saying that you should try to book one of the mainline options because the MD-88 is better than the CRJ or that the CRJ flights are cancelled more often would constitute a "travel guide."

ADrum23 wrote:
Wow, this sure has escalated.........

Look, I'm sorry, but policy is policy. I don't like a lot of Wikipedia's policies, but it is what it is.

If you have an issue, take it up with one of these Wikipedia editors: Garretka, Andrewgprout or Sunnya343. Those are the current ringleaders that seem to be enforcing all of the airline page policies.


How, exactly, is one to contact those individuals?

I'm not at all happy about this change, and worry that this removal of information will continue. I wasn't particularly upset when they did away with the terminals, and honestly this isn't the end of the world. But the next step is removing all airline and destination information entirely, which I'm afraid will happen.


Create an account on Wikipedia and post on their talk pages.
 
alan3
Posts: 147
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2014 6:13 am

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:35 am

The best part about Wikipedia (power in the hands of ordinary people) is the worst part of Wikipedia.

By all means remove false information. Malicious information. Completely off topic informatin. But to remove factual information people spent hours and hours of their own time to compile, just because some dude woke up one day and decided he didn't like it, is why it frustrates.

It's the inconsistency and arbitrary nature that annoys people.

Denver Airport.....states what Interstate highways serve the airport.
Bryce Canyon National Park......has an entire section called "Activities" about what people can do in the park.
London Paddington Station......has an entire section called "services" about what services are available at the station
LAX Airport....has an entire section called Ground Transportation about what ground transport is available, including bus numbers.

But god forbid tell people what airlines serve what terminal (even though many airports nowadays are being built to house specific alliances in specific terminals), and it's a "travel guide".
 
User avatar
FA9295
Posts: 915
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:44 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Thu Jan 25, 2018 4:25 am

alan3 wrote:
The best part about Wikipedia (power in the hands of ordinary people) is the worst part of Wikipedia.

By all means remove false information. Malicious information. Completely off topic informatin. But to remove factual information people spent hours and hours of their own time to compile, just because some dude woke up one day and decided he didn't like it, is why it frustrates.

It's the inconsistency and arbitrary nature that annoys people.

Denver Airport.....states what Interstate highways serve the airport.
Bryce Canyon National Park......has an entire section called "Activities" about what people can do in the park.
London Paddington Station......has an entire section called "services" about what services are available at the station
LAX Airport....has an entire section called Ground Transportation about what ground transport is available, including bus numbers.

But god forbid tell people what airlines serve what terminal (even though many airports nowadays are being built to house specific alliances in specific terminals), and it's a "travel guide".

Not every article is going to be perfect, and yes, there's going to be some inconsistency from time to time. Wikipedia isn't perfect, in fact, it's VERY FAR from perfect, but people believed that keeping up on the regional airline's schedules was a very tedious task, and there isn't any press releases for regional routes that already exist from the mainline fleet. Also, a whole bunch of people were in support to remove the regional airlines from the tables, not just one or two individuals.
Next flights:
PDX-LAX-MIA (American)
MCO-DFW-PDX (American)

PDX-MSP-PDX (Delta)
 
User avatar
FA9295
Posts: 915
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:44 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Thu Jan 25, 2018 4:33 am

StrandedAtMKG wrote:
FA9295 wrote:
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.


I don't understand this mentality of "no one cares." Some people obviously care, or no one would be making an issue out of it. If we were talking about an old-school encyclopedia printed on dead trees I would understand not printing this information for economic reasons (and because it cannot be updated regularly), but the beauty of Wikipedia is that the size of it is essentially limitless and it can be updated in a matter of seconds. I don't understand why the Powers That Be have not chosen to err on the side of more information rather than less.

Maybe phrasing it as "no one cares" was a bit harsh on my part, but the point of removing that information was because none of it was published by the airlines. For example, lets say that Delta Air Lines has been operating a route from AIRPORT X to AIRPORT Y with mainline aircraft, and then decides to add a regional flight to the route's schedule. Delta isn't going to publish a press release stating the aircraft changes, because most people don't care about that information. They just care that the route exists at all, not whether or not it's being operated by a regional or mainline jet. The mainline flights and the regional flights are still operated as ONE single carrier. The only difference is that the regional aircraft is leased from a subsidiary airline, but the main airline still officially runs the route.
Next flights:
PDX-LAX-MIA (American)
MCO-DFW-PDX (American)

PDX-MSP-PDX (Delta)
 
OslPhlWasChi
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 6:06 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Thu Jan 25, 2018 6:38 am

Many on here have mentioned that the simplification of the carriers is understandable but are pointing out disagreement with removing terminals from the destination tables.

Now that the tables are simplified, perhaps it is worth proposing to add back the terminal column?

There is no difference in saying under a terminal information section versus a destination tables that "Airline X operates out of Terminal Y" (what is currently commonplace in the terminal section of each airport page). Therefore, the not travel guide policy should not be considered valid given the new simplified tables. Instead, it just relocates the terminal info to a location and manner that is more legible to readers. Isn't maximizing the spread of information a goal of Wikipedia?
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 5951
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:01 am

I'd like to start my reply by acknowledging my uncoolness by actually having an opinion on this topic.

I agree with everyone here. And I especially miss the section that showed previous airlines and destinations served for each airport.
You know all is right is the world when the only thing people worry about is if the president had sex with a pornstar.


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
gunnerman
Posts: 550
Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 7:55 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:49 pm

For me, the question is this: who is the sole marketing carrier? There are many cases of an operating carrier, be it a subsidiary, franchisee or whatever, which has flights on a route which are solely marketed by another carrier, and I like this to be recorded in Wikipedia showing the marketing carrier and operating carrier:

British Airways operated by SUN-AIR (example: BA8246, MAN-BLL)
Delta Air Lines operated by Delta Connection (example: DL4828, ATL-AVL)

Now, in the latter example, Delta Connection is a brand name for several airlines and the operating carrier is actually SkyWest Airlines, but there needs to be a balance between a web page which gives partial information and gives a ton of information, and I think that what matters is being useful to most people.

I feel that I should say that those who do a lot to keep Wikipedia being a good source of information have my admiration, because I gave up after having my carefully-researched edits removed by some people who couldn't be bothered to check my sources (including airline timetables), and life is too short to take action against them.
 
NichCage
Posts: 916
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Thu Jan 25, 2018 9:36 pm

Wikipedia is a site that anyone can edit, so not everything is going to be credible or to your liking.

If your unsure about your flight, just check on Google Flights. The airline's website itself is more useful than Wikipedia sometimes.
 
Themotionman
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 1:18 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Fri Jan 26, 2018 8:01 pm

I understand the justification for merging US airlines ops together (United Airlines with United Express) but I cannot understand why Air Canada mainline has been merged with Air Canada Rouge...
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 18415
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Sat Jan 27, 2018 6:06 pm

Basically Wikipedia is getting dumbed down, and in the process losing the kind of detailed information that makes it useful.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
VX321
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 8:53 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Sun Jan 28, 2018 8:57 am

Is their next attack on airline destinations list? The link to AirAsia's, AC's, ANZ's, AI's and UX's are all gone.
 
User avatar
Super80Fan
Posts: 1001
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2017 4:14 am

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Mon Jan 29, 2018 2:23 am

People in their mother's basements who have no life outside of the internet so the tiny little "power" they do hold as a Wikipedia editor, they let it go to their head.
RIP McDonnell Douglas
 
User avatar
Midwestindy
Posts: 2702
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 3:56 am

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Sat Feb 03, 2018 1:37 pm

The changes have been undone
DL DM, AA Gold 2018: AMS, ATL, AUS, BOS, BWI, CDG, CLT, CMN, DCA, DFW, DTW, 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
cvgComair
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:48 pm

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Sat Feb 03, 2018 1:45 pm

They haven’t reached any consensus on the issue, but some users are undoing all the changes anyway. Hopefully it sticks, because I do prefer this presentation. Regardless of the editing guidelines and all that, there gets a point when it becomes ridiculous.
Next: PWM-LGA (Delta CRJ-900), LGA-CVG (Delta CRJ-900)
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
SumChristianus
Posts: 515
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:00 am

Re: Wikipedia changes to airport listings

Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:38 pm

Midwestindy wrote:
The changes have been undone


I'm glad, I liked watching for regional to mainline, upgauges and downgauges and other changes, breaking regionals down by operating carrier may have been to much, but this is a nice balance.
A Traddie wannaby---UA DL LH NW AA --- Next IND-DEN UA CR7
"Born in Wonder, Brought to Wisdom"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Chasensfo, drew777, FAST Enterprise [Crawler], seb146 and 49 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