Found this out when I saw TPA's Airport Wikipedia article had the destinations table eliminated. Followed by another user saying no consensus has yet been made on the change yet.

The table to me is really useful, from everything from real life to a flight simulator tool. It's cool and interesting to see a airport grow in service etc.

Reminds me of the time they tried to eliminate regional airlines from the table.

** EDIT**: Looks like this was from back in April, but the same user that proposed it deleted the TPA one just today, so wouldn't be surprised if this discussion comes back.

Then found the proposal and now ongoing discussion at the below link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... t_Airports

BTVB6Flyer wrote:

Found this out when I saw TPA's Airport Wikipedia article had the destinations table eliminated. Followed by another user saying no consensus has yet been made on the change yet.

The table to me is really useful, from everything from real life to a flight simulator tool. It's cool and interesting to see a airport grow in service etc.

Reminds me of the time they tried to eliminate regional airlines from the table.

** EDIT**: Looks like this was from back in April, but the same user that proposed it deleted the TPA one just today, so wouldn't be surprised if this discussion comes back.

Then found the proposal and now ongoing discussion at the below link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... t_Airports

Well, if Wikipedia does this I won’t use their platform.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. I have no idea why people want to remove the most useful tab of airport wikis.

Yeah I have noticed it always seems to be NBA2030, seems like he/she likes to change things.

First they got rid of the Terminal column and now they want to get rid of the destinations as well. Might as well not have a page dedicated to airports at all on Wikipedia and we should create our own Airport wiki on airliners.net !

I do somewhat agree with the poster in regards to some nasty editors and those pestering for references, a simple 10 second search on google for the schedule usually confirms the claim.

kriskim wrote:

First they got rid of the Terminal column and now they want to get rid of the destinations as well. Might as well not have a page dedicated to airports at all on Wikipedia and we should create our own Airport wiki on airliners.net !

I do somewhat agree with the poster in regards to some nasty editors and those pestering for references, a simple 10 second search on google for the schedule usually confirms the claim.

Having an airport wiki on ANet would be awesome. Hopefully one of the mods can pass the idea along.

As a frequent Wikipedia user/editor, the problem with using Wikipedia to add/remove destinations is that it's hard to keep the tables themselves up to date, since probably less than 25% of destinations listed there actually have obtainable online sources, especially for regional airlines such as SkyWest. If it ain't sourced, then it'll get removed.

I personally couldn't care less if the tables are removed. I stopped using them ever since I joined this website since everyone here seems to know what is and what isn't around about in the airline industry...

I use these tables every day for random obscure airports world wide as well as major hubs. Especially if I’m flight simming I use it to guage whether it’s worth buying a scenery addon and go get route ideas. I’d be extremely angry if they are deleted. What BS.

FA9295 wrote:

As a frequent Wikipedia user/editor, the problem with using Wikipedia to add/remove destinations is that it's hard to keep the tables themselves up to date, since probably less than 25% of destinations listed there actually have obtainable online sources, especially for regional airlines such as SkyWest.

I know Wikipedia is full of stupid, petty political fights, but this statement is demonstrably false. OO itself keeps the source up to date: http://www.skywest.com/fly-skywest-airl ... route-map/

Getting rid of the terminals was stupid to begin with. Back then, when they did that, I asked why not get rid of destinations since Wikipedia is a travel guide? Are they getting rid of the list of airlines? Next, they should get rid of the runway information. That's not needed for users as well.

Some years ago, I used to regularly write material on the ROC Wikipedia page. I got the impression that there are some junior-police-mindset editors on Wikipedia who enjoy lording power over people, whether or not it actually makes Wikipedia pages better.

Jim

Sorry for my ignorance, but what is the hard part about keeping the tables up to date (as apposed to any other article on the website)? This is Wiki we are talking about, we should all know the information might not be 100% accurate or updated at all times, but as a general guideline, it's an amazing resource.

I use the tables all the time, super useful information to have at your fingertips for any given airport.

It's my go to guide when looking for interesting flights to book, so I would really hate to see it go away. I regularly update the tables at airports I use often (mainly Icelandic airports and SW Florida) as well as adding FI/WW to new destinations they add, and I think there are local enthusiasts that do the same at most airports. What's the harm in keeping them?

DCA-ROCguy wrote:

Some years ago, I used to regularly write material on the ROC Wikipedia page. I got the impression that there are some junior-police-mindset editors on Wikipedia who enjoy lording power over people, whether or not it actually makes Wikipedia pages better.

Jim

Indeed. Much of the problem in the airport realm is an overly formalistic definition of source material. If airport XXX is located in a country that doesn’t publish its charts online, I don’t see why any of us should have a problem with a pilot who owns charts for XXX providing the source for runway orientations and lengths even though he cannot link to a website.

It’s a related but distinct problem with airlines and routes. Everything in those tables is verifiable with online timetables even if a stable link does not exist.

Good riddance. I stopped looking at these tables years ago, because they were so riddled with errors and egos prevented cleanup. I recall attempting to clean up several airports (boy, I miss having too much free time!) up, and the edits would immediately be reversed by the pages’ self appointed guardian — and probable a.net users.

For example, a flight to XXX operated for one season but XXX was still on YYY’s page several years later. I removed it, pointed to the PDF timetable in my edit description... and it’d be revered by a butt hurt guardian who claimed that until I could produce something showing the flight had been officially cancelled, s/he was leaving it up. And this process went on for several other airports.

zackary747 wrote:

kriskim wrote:

First they got rid of the Terminal column and now they want to get rid of the destinations as well. Might as well not have a page dedicated to airports at all on Wikipedia and we should create our own Airport wiki on airliners.net !

I do somewhat agree with the poster in regards to some nasty editors and those pestering for references, a simple 10 second search on google for the schedule usually confirms the claim.

Having an airport wiki on ANet would be awesome. Hopefully one of the mods can pass the idea along.

That's not a bad idea at all. If nothing else, here the information on airports would probably be more accurate and up-to-date than Wikipedia ever has been. Have it accessible via the main site masthead just like "Aircraft Data" except named "Airport Data". All entries organized alphabetically by three letter code and containing at a minimum the official name and full location, e.g. "LAX = Los Angeles International Airport, Los Angeles, California, USA".

BTVB6Flyer wrote:

Found this out when I saw TPA's Airport Wikipedia article had the destinations table eliminated. Followed by another user saying no consensus has yet been made on the change yet.

The table to me is really useful, from everything from real life to a flight simulator tool. It's cool and interesting to see a airport grow in service etc.

Reminds me of the time they tried to eliminate regional airlines from the table.

** EDIT**: Looks like this was from back in April, but the same user that proposed it deleted the TPA one just today, so wouldn't be surprised if this discussion comes back.

Then found the proposal and now ongoing discussion at the below link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... t_Airports

masonh2479 wrote:

If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. I have no idea why people want to remove the most useful tab of airport wikis.

Yeah I have noticed it always seems to be NBA2030, seems like he/she likes to change things.

And I'm going to out myself and say I'm NBA2030.

Before everyone attacks me, let me just start by saying I agree with most everyone here and I want the tables to stay and the other information as well.

However, the problem is certains users (most prominently, Andrewgprout, Garretka, AddictedFlyer21) are getting extremely anal retentive about what information can be included in the articles and how the tables are to be cited. Yesterday's removal of the tables was actually me protesting more than anything. I knew there would be an uproar and I was simply trying to prove a point how essential the tables are. The following is what I posted on my talk page in response to the users that told me to "Cease Immediately".

I apologize for blanket removal without proper consensus. However, it was more of a protest than anything else, and I expected the kind of response I got (of course I don't want them removed, they are very useful). The reason I snapped is certain users are arbitrarily forcing their will on how the airline and destination tables in airport articles should be cited. I and other users had been trying to clean up the tables and consolidate the sources (with a timetable source to the side; and this is considered a primary source), but certain users keep reverting and insisting that secondary sources are needed for the destinations (every individual one). The result is we have a ton of tables that have a bunch of random secondary citations for some (but not all) destinations, which makes the tables look fairly cluttered and unorganized. I have tried the avenues of trying to build consensus and directly talking to the said users, but either no consensus is reached or they fire back with WP:SECONDARY, WP:V, etc, and a stalemate ensures (then they go right back to reverting edits they disagree with). Frankly, it is unreasonable and absurd to include citations for every single random destination, but removing and trying to consolidate will inevitably lead to a revert and a stern warning from the said users.

Never mind the fact that the user who responded to me rightfully pointed out that nothing in there is nothing in the policies that prevent consolidating the references into a single timetable on the side, if the above mentioned users don't like things, they revert it.

I'm done with Wikipedia as I'm tired of dealing with the above users. I am all for creating a Wiki where we can actually post useful airport info without retribution from the self-appointed authoritarian Wikipedia ringleaders.

Shouldn't flightradar24 flight history, in theory, be proof that an airline regularly operates a route, and as the data is all factual, is that not a valid source?

"Here's a perfectly functioning and useful section of airport pages that's kept up to date by users. Let's remove it!"

NYPECO wrote:

"Here's a perfectly functioning and useful section of airport pages that's kept up to date by users. Let's remove it!"

Exactly.

Chasensfo wrote:

Shouldn't flightradar24 flight history, in theory, be proof that an airline regularly operates a route, and as the data is all factual, is that not a valid source?

In theory, you're absolutely correct. But per Wikipedia guidelines, sources need to be things such as news articles and official press releases. Not saying that I agree with that, but this is predominantly why this feud is happening in the first place...

ADrum23 wrote:

BTVB6Flyer wrote:

Found this out when I saw TPA's Airport Wikipedia article had the destinations table eliminated. Followed by another user saying no consensus has yet been made on the change yet.

The table to me is really useful, from everything from real life to a flight simulator tool. It's cool and interesting to see a airport grow in service etc.

Reminds me of the time they tried to eliminate regional airlines from the table.

** EDIT**: Looks like this was from back in April, but the same user that proposed it deleted the TPA one just today, so wouldn't be surprised if this discussion comes back.

Then found the proposal and now ongoing discussion at the below link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... t_Airports

masonh2479 wrote:

If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. I have no idea why people want to remove the most useful tab of airport wikis.

Yeah I have noticed it always seems to be NBA2030, seems like he/she likes to change things.

And I'm going to out myself and say I'm NBA2030.

Before everyone attacks me, let me just start by saying I agree with most everyone here and I want the tables to stay and the other information as well.

However, the problem is certains users (most prominently, Andrewgprout, Garretka, AddictedFlyer21) are getting extremely anal retentive about what information can be included in the articles and how the tables are to be cited. Yesterday's removal of the tables was actually me protesting more than anything. I knew there would be an uproar and I was simply trying to prove a point how essential the tables are. The following is what I posted on my talk page in response to the users that told me to "Cease Immediately".

I apologize for blanket removal without proper consensus. However, it was more of a protest than anything else, and I expected the kind of response I got (of course I don't want them removed, they are very useful). The reason I snapped is certain users are arbitrarily forcing their will on how the airline and destination tables in airport articles should be cited. I and other users had been trying to clean up the tables and consolidate the sources (with a timetable source to the side; and this is considered a primary source), but certain users keep reverting and insisting that secondary sources are needed for the destinations (every individual one). The result is we have a ton of tables that have a bunch of random secondary citations for some (but not all) destinations, which makes the tables look fairly cluttered and unorganized. I have tried the avenues of trying to build consensus and directly talking to the said users, but either no consensus is reached or they fire back with WP:SECONDARY, WP:V, etc, and a stalemate ensures (then they go right back to reverting edits they disagree with). Frankly, it is unreasonable and absurd to include citations for every single random destination, but removing and trying to consolidate will inevitably lead to a revert and a stern warning from the said users.

Never mind the fact that the user who responded to me rightfully pointed out that nothing in there is nothing in the policies that prevent consolidating the references into a single timetable on the side, if the above mentioned users don't like things, they revert it.

I'm done with Wikipedia as I'm tired of dealing with the above users. I am all for creating a Wiki where we can actually post useful airport info without retribution from the self-appointed authoritarian Wikipedia ringleaders.

THANK YOU! Someone who finally has the same (or similar enough) ideology that I do!

I get the impression on here that the people on this a.net thread are all crying wolf about removing the tables, when they don't even know what the consequences or purpose of keeping them there are. The people on airlines.net who claim that they are useful are the same exact people who already know so much more about what routes are running and not running more than the average person does. I certainly agree that they shouldn't be removed, but it's come to a point where people are being extremely aggressive and nasty about it. This feud between airliners.net and Wikipedia has gone on for several years and I'm pretty much just sick of it.

I don't have a Wikipedia account (never have, never will, since the site is a 100% bureaucratic power-ridden trip), but I've always been editing under various IP addresses over a long period of time and have noticed this never-ending war for years. Like you, I once snapped and did something very similar. I didn't remove the entire tables themselves, but I did consolidate Horizon and SkyWest destinations in the tables, and I also removed route maps on several airport pages.

For reference, at that time, I was editing under the IP address: 23.17.219.53: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... .17.219.53

After that, I stopped editing Wikipedia altogether. I couldn't take it anymore and it was just too much for me. With all of that mess, as well as the heated discussions taking place at WT:AIRPORTS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... t_Airports

FA9295 wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

BTVB6Flyer wrote:

Found this out when I saw TPA's Airport Wikipedia article had the destinations table eliminated. Followed by another user saying no consensus has yet been made on the change yet.

The table to me is really useful, from everything from real life to a flight simulator tool. It's cool and interesting to see a airport grow in service etc.

Reminds me of the time they tried to eliminate regional airlines from the table.

** EDIT**: Looks like this was from back in April, but the same user that proposed it deleted the TPA one just today, so wouldn't be surprised if this discussion comes back.

Then found the proposal and now ongoing discussion at the below link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... t_Airports

masonh2479 wrote:

If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. I have no idea why people want to remove the most useful tab of airport wikis.

Yeah I have noticed it always seems to be NBA2030, seems like he/she likes to change things.

And I'm going to out myself and say I'm NBA2030.

Before everyone attacks me, let me just start by saying I agree with most everyone here and I want the tables to stay and the other information as well.

However, the problem is certains users (most prominently, Andrewgprout, Garretka, AddictedFlyer21) are getting extremely anal retentive about what information can be included in the articles and how the tables are to be cited. Yesterday's removal of the tables was actually me protesting more than anything. I knew there would be an uproar and I was simply trying to prove a point how essential the tables are. The following is what I posted on my talk page in response to the users that told me to "Cease Immediately".

I apologize for blanket removal without proper consensus. However, it was more of a protest than anything else, and I expected the kind of response I got (of course I don't want them removed, they are very useful). The reason I snapped is certain users are arbitrarily forcing their will on how the airline and destination tables in airport articles should be cited. I and other users had been trying to clean up the tables and consolidate the sources (with a timetable source to the side; and this is considered a primary source), but certain users keep reverting and insisting that secondary sources are needed for the destinations (every individual one). The result is we have a ton of tables that have a bunch of random secondary citations for some (but not all) destinations, which makes the tables look fairly cluttered and unorganized. I have tried the avenues of trying to build consensus and directly talking to the said users, but either no consensus is reached or they fire back with WP:SECONDARY, WP:V, etc, and a stalemate ensures (then they go right back to reverting edits they disagree with). Frankly, it is unreasonable and absurd to include citations for every single random destination, but removing and trying to consolidate will inevitably lead to a revert and a stern warning from the said users.

Never mind the fact that the user who responded to me rightfully pointed out that nothing in there is nothing in the policies that prevent consolidating the references into a single timetable on the side, if the above mentioned users don't like things, they revert it.

I'm done with Wikipedia as I'm tired of dealing with the above users. I am all for creating a Wiki where we can actually post useful airport info without retribution from the self-appointed authoritarian Wikipedia ringleaders.

THANK YOU! Someone who finally has the same (or similar enough) ideology that I do!

I get the impression on here that the people on this a.net thread are all crying wolf about removing the tables, when they don't even know what the consequences or purpose of keeping them there are. The people on airlines.net who claim that they are useful are the same exact people who already know so much more about what routes are running and not running more than the average person does. I certainly agree that they shouldn't be removed, but it's come to a point where people are being extremely aggressive and nasty about it. This feud between airliners.net and Wikipedia has gone on for several years and I'm pretty much just sick of it.

I don't have a Wikipedia account (never have, never will, since the site is a 100% bureaucratic power-ridden trip), but I've always been editing under various IP addresses over a long period of time and have noticed this never-ending war for years. Like you, I once snapped and did something very similar. I didn't remove the entire tables themselves, but I did consolidate Horizon and SkyWest destinations in the tables, and I also removed route maps on several airport pages.

For reference, at that time, I was editing under the IP address: 23.17.219.53: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... .17.219.53

After that, I stopped editing Wikipedia altogether. I couldn't take it anymore and it was just too much for me. With all of that mess, as well as the heated discussions taking place at WT:AIRPORTS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... t_Airports

I can tell you that both when trying to create odd routings for standby travel, or for rebooking pax when I was a gate agent thru non-hub cities or odd interline routings, to my Flight Simulator projects, and keeping up with when new service starts and ends in one easy visually appealing place, these charts are very useful to myself and many other people. I get that there are issues associated with how wikipedia generally operates, but this is a great resource that is MOSTLY correct and accurate most of the time.

Presumably the decision will be made based on feedback by Wikipedia users/editors. So anyone who favors keeping the destination tables, should make their voices heard on the requisite discussion table posted in the original post.

FA9295 wrote:

The people on airlines.net who claim that they are useful are the same exact people who already know so much more about what routes are running and not running more than the average person does.

I think they know about those routes because they used Wikipedia to find them.

FA9295 wrote:

Chasensfo wrote:

Shouldn't flightradar24 flight history, in theory, be proof that an airline regularly operates a route, and as the data is all factual, is that not a valid source?

In theory, you're absolutely correct. But per Wikipedia guidelines, sources need to be things such as news articles and official press releases. Not saying that I agree with that, but this is predominantly why this feud is happening in the first place...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:USEBYOTHERS should be enough to prove FR24 can be used as a source?

I don't see the destination tables being eliminated, but in case they do, it would be easy to start something like "Airportpedia" or something similar via wikia - there are a ton of offsite wikias that are more helpful than the main wiki. We'd be able to template and update whatever info we'd want (destinations, terminals, historic routes, load factors, yields, etc).

Link: AirportPedia

The next step is scrubbing destination info from the current sites and then updating them over time. Better to backup the data that's already existing in case they delete it completely. It's easy to find this information via google of course, and a small program could be written to search google for the current information and then inject it into a template or something. Just shooting off the cuff here!

For destination info, I would usually just type "[airport code] airport destinations" into google and that usually would yield most applicable results other than some special situations or marginal carriers that are not registered into the databases

I used to maintain some destination tables, carefully doing research and providing evidence for the changes such as airlines' timetables, but too often my changes were reversed by people who thought they knew better. After a while I gave up as life is too short to get upset by this sort of thing.

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. Content should have a long shelf life. If it changes all the time, then it probably shouldn't be on wikipedia.

I gave up on doing anything probative on Wikipedia due to these types of idiocy...

People start citing rules that don't explain their viewpoint, refuse to support their viewpoint, cite more questionably relevant rules, start making edits without consensus, refuse to accept changes.... gah, it's nothing but a political junkyard dog fight now. There is no point in getting back into it when there are too many anal retentive idiots flooding every discussion with useless rule cites because they literally have nothing better to do than protect their little vision of Wikipedia.

Can we just get the ringleaders laid and take them out into an open field on a sunny day to show them the world away from their keyboards? That may be all we need.

c933103 wrote:

For destination info, I would usually just type "[airport code] airport destinations" into google and that usually would yield most applicable results other than some special situations or marginal carriers that are not registered into the databases

Most airports have their own websites, and most of those websites have an "Arrivals" and "Departures" section (sometimes a quick shot of the Arrivals and Departures boards inside the airports themselves). I like using these because they give "real time" knowledge of current flights... but I do wonder why at least one FlyDubai flight to Tbilisi is cancelled almost every day....

Most large time Wikipedia editors have no life outside of the internet, so they take anything they can as far as power. Looking over the talk page right now the worst of the worst seems to be user Jetstreamer, who seems to think he has sole control over the aviation pages and what goes/doesn't go.

Cubsrule wrote:

DCA-ROCguy wrote:

Some years ago, I used to regularly write material on the ROC Wikipedia page. I got the impression that there are some junior-police-mindset editors on Wikipedia who enjoy lording power over people, whether or not it actually makes Wikipedia pages better.

Jim

Indeed. Much of the problem in the airport realm is an overly formalistic definition of source material. If airport XXX is located in a country that doesn’t publish its charts online, I don’t see why any of us should have a problem with a pilot who owns charts for XXX providing the source for runway orientations and lengths even though he cannot link to a website.

It’s a related but distinct problem with airlines and routes. Everything in those tables is verifiable with online timetables even if a stable link does not exist.

It does remind me of waaaaaay back when I created a page about a certain aerospace technology and it got pulled because I couldn't provide a source. I argued with the editor - to no avail - that I *was* the source... it's kind of hard to provide something else when you're the one currently developing the technology.

There's a man living in Barbados who seems to think that he owns the BGI airport page. When I made changes to the page and provided verifiable sources, the chances were that he'd reverse them. In the end I just gave up as I have better things to do with my time than argue with idiots.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

It does remind me of waaaaaay back when I created a page about a certain aerospace technology and it got pulled because I couldn't provide a source. I argued with the editor - to no avail - that I *was* the source... it's kind of hard to provide something else when you're the one currently developing the technology.

That is intentionally disallowed by Wikipedia and have already become one of the "pillar" of Wikipedia policy. Problem with allowing people to write what they know based on researches they are doing is that other can't really tell if that is really important enough to be included in the wikipedia and also the degree of neutrality and verifiability in those content, especially when Wikipedia want to present itself as an encyclopedia that's comparable to those traditional ones.

This is stupid. What's the point of placing information that is gonna be taken out because it's updated constantly?

I had the same gripe when they removed the "Least valued currency unit" and "Most valued currency unit" pages: because their values fluctuate daily, the better source is FOREX websites, but to me it was a good place to see how currencies stacked against one another, and see currencies that have more/less value than the US Dollar, for example.

When I'm in a hurry to consider an airport to fly into, Wiki has always been my go-to place. Removing the destinations table would be a huge setback. If there's a concern about the accuracy of the data, there's always the "As of X" statement that specifies how current the information is.

c933103 wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

It does remind me of waaaaaay back when I created a page about a certain aerospace technology and it got pulled because I couldn't provide a source. I argued with the editor - to no avail - that I *was* the source... it's kind of hard to provide something else when you're the one currently developing the technology.

That is intentionally disallowed by Wikipedia and have already become one of the "pillar" of Wikipedia policy. Problem with allowing people to write what they know based on researches they are doing is that other can't really tell if that is really important enough to be included in the wikipedia and also the degree of neutrality and verifiability in those content, especially when Wikipedia want to present itself as an encyclopedia that's comparable to those traditional ones.

When I said waaaaay back, I was talking about early 2000s before most people had even heard of it - so the policies were not so familiar (maybe not even formalised) at the time. Also, it happened was when I was correcting constant alterations by other people (who didn't cite anything to back up their version, but their word was accepted over mine since they had higher status within the user group) - so be told that *I* was wrong about my own development was slightly irritating, to say the least.

The result was that the page that I had created about my own subject was now showing falsehoods propagated by others which I couldn't alter.

That experience ended my brief time on WikiPedia...

/off-topic

maybe we should create our own airport san wiki where we have all the information we had years ago. When i looks at now, i feel something is missing like which concourse or terminal the airlines flying from. I miss that kind of information.

Does anyone know why Wikipedia no longer listes the terminal each flight operates out of? Used to be pretty useful and have no idea why it got removed.

Midway737 wrote:

maybe we should create our own airport san wiki where we have all the information we had years ago. When i looks at now, i feel something is missing like which concourse or terminal the airlines flying from. I miss that kind of information.

Oh snap. I just realized the terminal information is missing; but I guess that just shows how much attention I pay to it in the first place. I guess an argument could be made as to where do you draw the line? If you put the terminal/concourse information, should you also put the gates? The restaurants and stores? Moving walkways and shuttles?

I think airlines and destinations are sufficient information for the majority of the people. I mean, do I really care which terminal I'll depart from when I go to an airport?

Why does everyone feel the need to check this stuff on wiki?
It's not like airlines and airports provide all this information (terminals/flights status/destinations/airlines) freely and arguably more accurately.

ChrisKen wrote:

Why does everyone feel the need to check this stuff on wiki?
It's not like airlines and airports provide all this information (terminals/flights status/destinations/airlines) freely and arguably more accurately.

1. Most airlines only provide terminal information from their hubs and major airports.
2. Flight status is irrelevant on Wiki and only needed the day OF travel.
3. Airlines and airports usually list their destinations altogether, not on a hub by hub basis. WE know a regional airport will see service only to certain hubs; what about focus cities and other larger airports? How do I know, for example, that mainline AA only flies to MEM from CLT and DFW? Or that AA serves MEM from all hubs except LAX?
4. Airport websites are not necessarily kept up to date as frequently as a Wiki page. It wasn't until recently, for example, that SJU finally got a decent website for information. Even then, how can I tell that AA only flies to its eastern hubs except JFK?

einsteinboricua wrote:

1. Most airlines only provide terminal information from their hubs and major airports.

Every airline I've ever flown or looked with has provided the info. The airport also provides the information.

2. Flight status is irrelevant on Wiki and only needed the day OF travel.

No need to whine it's not on there then

3. Airlines and airports usually list their destinations altogether, not on a hub by hub basis. WE know a regional airport will see service only to certain hubs; what about focus cities and other larger airports? How do I know, for example, that mainline AA only flies to MEM from CLT and DFW? Or that AA serves MEM from all hubs except LAX?

Again, airport websites generally show their destinations and airlines. Airlines themselves provide all the information needed on their website. Be it via routemaps, timetables or you know, that massive searchable database of flights they use to search & book with.

4. Airport websites are not necessarily kept up to date as frequently as a Wiki page. It wasn't until recently, for example, that SJU finally got a decent website for information.

You use those brain cells, Searching for AA flights? Use AA's website..... or the myriad of other flight finding tools available.

Wiki is pretty much the last place I'd look for flight info.

einsteinboricua wrote:

Midway737 wrote:

maybe we should create our own airport san wiki where we have all the information we had years ago. When i looks at now, i feel something is missing like which concourse or terminal the airlines flying from. I miss that kind of information.

Oh snap. I just realized the terminal information is missing; but I guess that just shows how much attention I pay to it in the first place. I guess an argument could be made as to where do you draw the line? If you put the terminal/concourse information, should you also put the gates? The restaurants and stores? Moving walkways and shuttles?

I think airlines and destinations are sufficient information for the majority of the people. I mean, do I really care which terminal I'll depart from when I go to an airport?

I also wants to point out needs to know whether airlines flying is regional or mainline. It help people to decide whether it worth to buy ticket on regional or mainline aircraft.

ChrisKen wrote:

Wiki is pretty much the last place I'd look for flight info.

So why do you care where people get their information from?

Merely asked a question in line with the context of the thread and then replied to further comments. You know, take part in the ongoing discussion.

To answer your question. As an individual I don't really care where you look but remember, to make an informed decision or form an informed opinion, you need to be well informed with reliable information to start with.
Sources of information are important and in the 'current age' more than ever. Wiki can, in some cases, give a reasonable general overview or provide a starting point but the information can be more reliably and accurately found via other (more obvious) sources.
In the case of this thread, the airlines or airports themselves. Which you'd hope people would check rather than relying on Wiki to be 'gospel'.

SRQKEF wrote:

It's my go to guide when looking for interesting flights to book, so I would really hate to see it go away. I regularly update the tables at airports I use often (mainly Icelandic airports and SW Florida) as well as adding FI/WW to new destinations they add, and I think there are local enthusiasts that do the same at most airports. What's the harm in keeping them?

I agree. Wiki might not be perfect (many airports have outdated information) but it is very useful when planning an out of the box trip. It gives you in seconds a good snapshot of the airport, and you can easily move around Wikipedia to nearby airports (e.g. "Airports of London"). Otherwise how would you know that Blue Air flies seasonally from Constanța to Brussels? Or that Spirit flies from Atlantic City to Palm Beach? Yes, you could look at each airport and carrier website but that would be extenuating and time consuming.

ChrisKen wrote:

Every airline I've ever flown or looked with has provided the info. The airport also provides the information.

For specific airline/airport information, your way to do it works fine. Case in point, I often go to INN's website to see upcoming season charter and scheduled flights. It's a smaller airport and I know their info might be more up-to-date. Plus they publish a very easy to read PDF with all their flights on there. Bigger airports can't do this in a eye-pleasing way. Anyhow... the wiki tables serve a different purpose that has already been stated in this thread multiple times.

I personally use them to see a consolidated view of all destinations served from a particular airport by various airlines. If I go to a bigger airport's website, I would either need to dig through their published schedules to sort this information myself or go to an airlines website and do the same thing, but have to be limited to only their flight data. Wiki provides a resource that aggregates all the data into a central location.

Why do data scientists in various industries create graphs and infographics? Because it's easier to process and understand information presented to the avg. person. With no need to excavate deep into a ton of data points which might be irrelevant to your purpose.