Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
There is strong consensus that the terminal information column shall be removed from all airline and destination tables at airport articles, per WP:NOTTRAVEL.Winged Blades Godric 16:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Yflyer wrote:So essentially Wikipedia had a rule that they're an encyclopedia, not a travel guide, and the consensus among editors is that the inclusion of which airlines use which terminal is a violation of this rule.
N292UX wrote:They have no problems putting useless refs in their place instead!
TheGeordielad wrote:I know right it's annoying.I used wiki for which terminals I arrived and departed from.Lets hope someone can fix it.
NickLAX wrote:Some of us who travel a lot actually used that info as Wikipedia likely was the only reliable source.
kaitak744 wrote:Yflyer wrote:So essentially Wikipedia had a rule that they're an encyclopedia, not a travel guide, and the consensus among editors is that the inclusion of which airlines use which terminal is a violation of this rule.
A travel guide has information on what is the best place to eat, what is the best show to watch, when are the best times to go to the beach, etc.
What airline serves what terminal is pure fact and information. Facts belong in an encyclopedia. That is what an encyclopedia is.
This is so stupid, and it is making me incredibly mad.
I would like to ask all Airliners.net members to lobby that airport group to bring that information back.
TWA772LR wrote:I miss the breakdown in US regional carriers for airport wikis. I loved seeing what individual carrier flew where and for whom.
cvgComair wrote:Since I was part of this discussion, I thought I would give some feedback based on the policies in Wikipedia. Let me be clear, I would love the terminal information to stay as an Aviation Enthusiast, but as a Wikipedia editor as well, we must follow the policies set forth. They are very extensive and complicated, I highly doubt many people in this forum understand them.N292UX wrote:They have no problems putting useless refs in their place instead!
They are not useless, and without them, the destination lists would be gone! I am sure no one here wants that! The routes need to be sourced per Wikipedia and most of the information has gone unsourced with many IP editors making incorrect changes. It is annoying for those of us who make meaningful edits, but we must follow Wikipedia policies.TheGeordielad wrote:I know right it's annoying.I used wiki for which terminals I arrived and departed from.Lets hope someone can fix it.NickLAX wrote:Some of us who travel a lot actually used that info as Wikipedia likely was the only reliable source.
These are the exact reasons we removed them, it is not a travel guide. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the terminal information in the way it was presented was in violation of multiple core Wikipedia policies. I have been working hard to keep the destinations served at each airport, they have been very close to being removed several times. While agree the information is useful to travelers, it is not consistent with the goals/policies of Wikipedia.kaitak744 wrote:Yflyer wrote:So essentially Wikipedia had a rule that they're an encyclopedia, not a travel guide, and the consensus among editors is that the inclusion of which airlines use which terminal is a violation of this rule.
A travel guide has information on what is the best place to eat, what is the best show to watch, when are the best times to go to the beach, etc.
What airline serves what terminal is pure fact and information. Facts belong in an encyclopedia. That is what an encyclopedia is.
This is so stupid, and it is making me incredibly mad.
I would like to ask all Airliners.net members to lobby that airport group to bring that information back.
Not happening . Believe me I like the information, but all Wikipedia articles must follow strict guidelines. There is some work going on to create new tables that explain the layout of the airports, an example is located on IND's airport page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indianapo ... nformation. This should be coming to more pages soon!
c933103 wrote:From what I understand, it might be a good idea to list which airlines uses which terminals in terminal section of those airport pages, however they were in the destination secions and the table was for destinations that those airlines are connected to. By putting the information in destination table also mean that there won't be any additional explanation above or below those table explaining significances or rationale of those allocations as that is not what the section is for and thus the information is not as useful as it could be if it is organized otherwise.
cvgComair wrote:TheGeordielad wrote:I know right it's annoying.I used wiki for which terminals I arrived and departed from.Lets hope someone can fix it.NickLAX wrote:Some of us who travel a lot actually used that info as Wikipedia likely was the only reliable source.
These are the exact reasons we removed them, it is not a travel guide. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the terminal information in the way it was presented was in violation of multiple core Wikipedia policies. I have been working hard to keep the destinations served at each airport, they have been very close to being removed several times. While agree the information is useful to travelers, it is not consistent with the goals/policies of Wikipedia.
Ziyulu wrote:Why not get rid of the airline names since Wikipedia is not a travel guide? Also, get rid of runway lengths and numbers since an average traveler does not gain value from those facts.
kaitak744 wrote:Thank you for the explanation. However, I must say, I do not understand your point. Exactly how is displaying terminal information violating Wikipedia's core policies?
What is the purpose of the site at all?
How does that purpose not fit with displaying FACTUAL information?
I respect your effort, but I do not agree with your statements. I am still going to try to bring it back.
Super80Fan wrote:Doesn't surprise me, Wikipedia has and always will be run by worthless people who have failed at all other walks of life. I'm not talking about snip-its here and there that anyone can edit, I'm talking about those who set the policies/guidelines.
BartSimpson wrote:Super80Fan wrote:Doesn't surprise me, Wikipedia has and always will be run by worthless people who have failed at all other walks of life. I'm not talking about snip-its here and there that anyone can edit, I'm talking about those who set the policies/guidelines.
Simply disgusting how you judge other people that you even don't know.
Anyway, those comments tell more about you than about the people you try to criticize.
TheFlyingDisk wrote:I don't get it. If you want to know which terminal to go to when flying which airline - go to the airport website.
Wikipedia shouldn't be loaded with too detailed information. If it is to function as an encyclopedia, then the information provided should be as generic as possible so that the reader can get an overall picture of the topic.
TheFlyingDisk wrote:I don't get it. If you want to know which terminal to go to when flying which airline - go to the airport website.
Wikipedia shouldn't be loaded with too detailed information. If it is to function as an encyclopedia, then the information provided should be as generic as possible so that the reader can get an overall picture of the topic.
Ziyulu wrote:TheFlyingDisk wrote:I don't get it. If you want to know which terminal to go to when flying which airline - go to the airport website.
Wikipedia shouldn't be loaded with too detailed information. If it is to function as an encyclopedia, then the information provided should be as generic as possible so that the reader can get an overall picture of the topic.
Why list the airlines? If you want to know which airlines fly to the airport, go to the airport website.
TheFlyingDisk wrote:I don't get it. If you want to know which terminal to go to when flying which airline - go to the airport website.
Wikipedia shouldn't be loaded with too detailed information. If it is to function as an encyclopedia, then the information provided should be as generic as possible so that the reader can get an overall picture of the topic.
Super80Fan wrote:BartSimpson wrote:Super80Fan wrote:Doesn't surprise me, Wikipedia has and always will be run by worthless people who have failed at all other walks of life. I'm not talking about snip-its here and there that anyone can edit, I'm talking about those who set the policies/guidelines.
Simply disgusting how you judge other people that you even don't know.
Anyway, those comments tell more about you than about the people you try to criticize.
Hello Mr. Wikipedia Moderator, what a surprise to see you on here!
TheFlyingDisk wrote:Ziyulu wrote:TheFlyingDisk wrote:I don't get it. If you want to know which terminal to go to when flying which airline - go to the airport website.
Wikipedia shouldn't be loaded with too detailed information. If it is to function as an encyclopedia, then the information provided should be as generic as possible so that the reader can get an overall picture of the topic.
Why list the airlines? If you want to know which airlines fly to the airport, go to the airport website.
Airline lists are generic. Airline terminal locations aren't.
Ziyulu wrote:TheFlyingDisk wrote:Ziyulu wrote:
Why list the airlines? If you want to know which airlines fly to the airport, go to the airport website.
Airline lists are generic. Airline terminal locations aren't.
What is your definition of "generic"? I'm not understanding the difference.
Super80Fan wrote:BartSimpson wrote:Super80Fan wrote:Doesn't surprise me, Wikipedia has and always will be run by worthless people who have failed at all other walks of life. I'm not talking about snip-its here and there that anyone can edit, I'm talking about those who set the policies/guidelines.
Simply disgusting how you judge other people that you even don't know.
Anyway, those comments tell more about you than about the people you try to criticize.
Hello Mr. Wikipedia Moderator, what a surprise to see you on here!
TheFlyingDisk wrote:Ziyulu wrote:TheFlyingDisk wrote:
Airline lists are generic. Airline terminal locations aren't.
What is your definition of "generic"? I'm not understanding the difference.
American flying to LHR is generic info. American flying into Terminal 3 of Heathrow isn't. Get the picture?