Talk:Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport

VFD Discussion

Airport articles are discouraged, and although ATL is busy, it's largely a transfer airport and not exceptionally complex or isolated -- doesn't really fit into the exceptions, and the useful bits from the article could easily transfer into Atlanta without overburdening it.

• Merge and delete. — (WT-en) D. Guillaime 20:37, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

• • Seems like a transfer airport is a better candidate for a standalone article, because the majority of passengers using it don't care about Atlanta and just want to know how to get around the airport. (WT-en) LtPowers 22:55, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

• Merge and delete according to policy at exceptions (this clearly isn't one).--(WT-en) Burmesedays 03:24, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

• How do you figure it isn't an exception? The example exceptions are Kansai and Heathrow, both of which are smaller airports than Atlanta in terms of land area, number of passengers moved, number of flights, and number of destinations. —(WT-en) BigPeteB 09:44, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

I should have been more specific perhaps. My memories of Atlanta are that it is not especially complex or interesting, and as it handles relatively few international flights, has only run-of-the-mill shopping and dining options. Kansai and Heathrow are the direct opposite of those factors. The article bears that out by not being very long, and could easily be merged into Atlanta. Heathrow and Kansai by contrast would seriously over-burden their respective city articles. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:28, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Okay, now I understand your point. In that case (and it's easier to see this in hindsight than when I started the article) I agree that there's really not much info in spite of it being such a large airport, and it could easily be merged. I'm happy to do that sometime next week after I get back from a trip. —(WT-en) BigPeteB 11:27, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

• Merge and delete - I agree with what Dguillaime said: "not exceptionally complex or isolated" = "doesn't really fit into the exceptions". (WT-en) texugo 09:58, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

• Merge and redirect. I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be a redirect, but the arguments for merging seem persuasive. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:32, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

• Actually, I meant merge and re-direct also. That creates an easy search term which our crappy search engine will recognise. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:51, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Result: Merge. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:28, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

Free WiFi

Soon, according to USA Today. Pashley (talk) 01:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Article status

We don't seem to have an official definition of what an airport article needs to do to be usable, so let me just ask the stupid question: Is it usable? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Feedback re:FTT

I definitely support the article's FTT nomination, but have two small ideas for improvement:

1. The Plane Train seems like it would be a useful way of getting to the international terminal by public transport, yet its only mentions are in the Get around section, with only an unspecified "shuttle" being stated to transport international passengers to and from the MARTA station. Is the Plane Train not a viable option for this journey?
2. What about places to eat and drink inside the international terminal?

Other than that, looks good. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Hmm... Airport articles don't usually have a separate section for getting to the airport. I guess it's assumed that these articles are for visitors not locals, and/or that readers can take the "Ground transportation" info for leaving the airport and figure out how to do it in reverse. Maybe some clearer info for how to get [back] to the airport would be helpful, but you'd have to figure out where to put it; that might be a question to raise at wv:Airport article template (although it already seems clear from that page that it belongs under "Ground transportation").

I was briefly confused about what you meant by "unspecified 'shuttle'", but now I see the problem: brief directions are given first under "Flights" before details about getting to/from the airport are addressed later in "Ground transportation".

To answer your specific question: the Plane Train is inside the secure area, so that limits its usefulness for getting in or out:

• If you arrive on an international flight, then as with any US airport you have to follow a one-way path which will either make you exit into the International Terminal, or you can re-enter security, but if this is your final destination then you can't do that. So for arriving international passengers, the Plane Train isn't an option to leave the airport, and you must take the shuttle if you want to e.g. go to the MARTA station.
• The same is true for departing on an international flight. If you have to go to the International Terminal to get your ticket or check your bags, then you don't yet have the ticket that would let you into security to get to the Plane Train in the first place. (Or you have a ticket but have a bag you're going to check. So what, you would go through security once with a bag that might not make it past security anyway, cross the airport, leave security to go check your bag, and then go through security again? It's feasible but very silly, and it would be faster and easier to take the shuttle.)
  • That said, if you were flying internationally on Delta, for example, then you can get your ticket, check your bag, and pass security all at the Domestic Terminal and go directly to your gate; there's no need to go to the International Terminal at all (although your flight probably leaves from Concourses E or F, which are respectively next to and attached to the International Terminal). That's actually not explained correctly in the article right now.

Maybe it's not clear enough in the article that the International Terminal is strictly the portion that's outside the secure area for ticketing and baggage claim; gates for international flights are at Concourses E and F. Likewise, maybe it's not clear that the Plane Train is strictly inside the secure area.

As for restaurants, I see why the text may be confusing. Concourse F and International Terminal are the same building, the difference being that International Terminal is everything outside the secure zone, and Concourse F is everything inside. So yes, in the International Terminal the only two eateries are Sweet Auburn Market and Starbucks, but as written it sounds like there might be other places in the International Terminal inside the secure zone, which isn't a thing; that would be Concourse F. --Bigpeteb (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for that good, thorough answer. Looks like some of that would be helpful if it were in the article.

So how much time do passengers typically spend inside the international terminal? Because if it's hours, then two eateries - for an airport of this size - is both unusual and inconvenient. Should we be more explicit in warning readers of that, so they make time to visit one of the Concourses before going through security? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I think you still have it backwards. The terminology is different here; "terminals" are before security, and "concourses" are after security.

The only thing in the International Terminal is ticketing and baggage claim. If you're a departing passenger, you would only be there long enough to check in and go through security; then you have access to the 100+ restaurants in the 7 concourses where the gates are. If you're an arriving passenger, you would collect your baggage and then leave, yes? And if you're making an international connection, then after clearing immigration and customs, you would get checked in for your next flight, enter security, and again have access to the majority of the airport.

The only other reason to spend any time in the International Terminal instead of going through security would be if you're spending time saying goodbye to people who aren't coming with you. In that case, yes, International Terminal has paltry options compared to Domestic Terminal. That could be spelled out more clearly, but otherwise it doesn't seem at all unusual that there isn't much to eat, drink, buy, or do in the non-secure part of the airport. --Bigpeteb (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Map

I find the current dynamic map visually confusing—it doesn't look the way I expect an airport map to look. I expect a map of an airport to look something like this, with terminals that are visually clear and stand out in the image. Is there any way we can create a static map for this article, or at least change the dynamic map to show the shapes of the terminals like the dynamic map at O'Hare International Airport does? —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: Current policy (which I don't fully agree with) is that an article should have either a static map, or a dynamic map, but never both. I find this inconvenient, since until a couple months ago this article already had a static map which was labeled to show only a few important elements, and rotated to fit better in a vertical orientation. Nevertheless, current policy dictates that we can't have both; other editors do enforce that.

I'm sure we could do something with map shapes to highlight each of the terminals and concourses. It's made slightly more complicated by the fact that the terminals (Domestic and International) are part of the same building as concourses (T and F, respectively).

However, I wonder if it's really necessary. ATL's layout isn't the same as many other large airports. Comparing it to your example of O'Hare, at ATL the only thing you need to know for check-in is whether your airline's checkin desks are in the Domestic Terminal or International Terminal, which should be fairly obvious by the names. All the desks are right next to each other, and then there's only one way through security at either end. Your flight could be assigned to literally any gate in the entire airport, and it doesn't matter because you get to every terminal full of gates the same way, and it never takes more than about 10 minutes, maybe 15 at the most.

Granted, I lived in Atlanta for more than 15 years so of course it seems easy to me, but I can tell people struggle with this problem just based on the questions they ask. I could make an FAQ based on the things I hear people ask, because they keep thinking the specifics of which airline or gate or flight they're on matters, and it generally doesn't at this airport.

"Which terminal do I go to to check in? It said online that my flight's at gate D13."

If you're flying a U.S. airline, go to the Domestic Terminal. If you're flying a foreign airline, go to the International Terminal. If you're flying Delta, go to whichever one is easier for you to get to. Forget the gate; it doesn't matter at this point. Only the simplest and most obvious fact about your airline (domestic or international) matters for where you need to go.

"I've checked in and dropped my bags, now which security do I go to for gate D13?"

Any of them. They all take you to the same place: the entire airport. International Terminal only has one anyway. Domestic Terminal has three but they exit right next to each other, so it still doesn't matter except for the wait times.

"I got through security. My flight is at gate D13. How do I get there?"

The same way you get to any gate in the entire airport: Go downstairs, take the train to the correct terminal, go upstairs into your terminal, and walk to your gate. There are 192 gates at this airport and that answer is correct for every single one of them.

"I arrived at gate D13 on Xyz Airways. Where do I go for baggage claim?"

If it was a domestic flight, go to Domestic Terminal. If it was an international flight, you'll be directed through customs and immigration, and that's where your baggage will be.

(Like, seriously, people, what's so hard about it? The terminals are named "Domestic" and "International". There are signs that say "security for all gates". The concourses are all in a line, A through F (with T being the exception). The train goes in a straight line, shows you the layout, and tells you where you are at every stop.)

Now that you've got me thinking about it, I think the old static map would be much more useful than the one currently in the "Get around" section. But if I had to choose between a static map or a dynamic map, I think I'd rather have the dynamic map. Having a color-coded map to highlight the layout of the terminals is not very helpful here. Having pins to show where all the interesting shops and restaurants are is useful, and is something that's completely infeasible on a static map. --Bigpeteb (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Every airport is different, so I think no airport article is complete without a map clearly showing the layout of the terminals. It might not need to be color-coded in this case. An airport with a straightforward layout might benefit even more from a map, because it would reassure travelers that there are no complications and they don't need to ask the questions whose answers seem so obvious to a local like you. As far as I can remember I've never been to a major airport where all the concourses were lined up in a straight line like ATL, so I don't think I would find the layout particularly intuitive.

If we can use mapshapes to do it in a clear way, that would be fine. If not, I think this article would be an appropriate exception to the general "no double maps" policy, because the two maps give different information: the static map gives the layout of the terminals, whereas the dynamic map gives the locations of the hotels.

Does anyone object to making an exception and allowing both maps in this article? —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Seeing no objections, I've added the extra map. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Dynamic map bug on Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport

Swept in from the pub

Could someone help debug Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport? The dynamic map appears to load briefly, but then gets replaced by a white screen with just a "6" marker in the center. However, if you click on a marker in the article, the full-screen pop-up map works perfectly. I don't see any JavaScript errors, and I have no idea what else could be going wrong. --Bigpeteb (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Done. Looks like someone forgot the "zoom=" parameter. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I've been staring at that for ages and couldn't figure out what was wrong. It didn't even occur to me that "zoom" has to be a named parameter. --Bigpeteb (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I think that the default behaviour of mapframe has recently changed. I saw something similar with Ben Nevis, which had mapframe added when it only had one marker. Adding other markers sorted it out. Previously mapframe had a default zoom which gave a map around 2 miles wide, now it needs zoom to be specified, or for there to be several markers. AlasdairW (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, this was my mistake - I initially thought the train-line mapshapes might have been behind the map's misbehavior, and after realizing it was something else, I forgot to reinstate them. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with AlasdairW. Something in the dynamic map changed and zoom needs to be specified. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@AndreCarrotflower: Actually, there was another error relating to the mapshapes, which Andree.sk fixed. For some reason, using Template:Mapshapes for the Plane Train was causing a blank line to be inserted (while at the same time not drawing anything, since there's apparently some thing missing in either WD or OSM). Changing it to Template:Mapshape and specifying drawing parameters not only makes it draw correctly, but fixes the blank line. --Bigpeteb (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bigpeteb: the problem was that {{mapshapes}} only shows "networks", not single lines. In other words, the wikidata entry has to have "has part" subentries, which are then linked to the actualy OSM relations (lines). Perhaps I could extend mapshapes to handle this case as well, but I'm not sure it's a good design - convince me :-))) -- andree.sk(talk) 07:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, simply from an editor's perspective, it seems... unfriendly. Why should a WV editor have to know or care what the structure of the Wikidata entry is in order to make it show up correctly on a map? Or, to put it another way, what would be the downside in having one template that handles both things (other than it being more complex to implement the template)?

Right now, it seems like both templates have minor limitations compared to each other. Mapshapes can't specify type=geomask or geoshape, so you couldn't use it to, say, show the 5 boroughs of NYC from a single Wikidata entry. Mapshape isn't perfect, either: it doesn't currently default to using the title from the linked Wikidata entry.

I don't suppose I can argue "but what about when the data changes, like a second rail line opens" because at that point we ought to be updating the text of the page anyway. Still, just to make things easier for editors, it would be nice if they didn't have to bumble around to figure out which template to use. Or if they do have to, that ought to be documented better, because I had no idea that was the case. I'm a programmer by day, so I'm no slouch, but in this case I just mimicked what other pages do and used Mapshapes without giving it a second thought. Unlike templates that generate text, where you can look at the result and have a decent guess at what you did wrong, with these map templates the result is often that you get nothing at all, and no obvious way to debug it. --Bigpeteb (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Nagasaki had the same problem, I fixed it by specifying a zoom. How about either making the map use a default zoom if none is specified, or fix all occurrences? Thanks! :-) Syced (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Star nomination

Although I'm biased (as I wrote most of the article and its listings) I think that of all our airport articles this one is the closest to being star quality. As the busiest airport in the world, I think it would be very fitting if we could make it our first star-quality airport article. I've put a lot of work into it, but I'm at a point where it could use some more eyes (and maybe more hands) to identify what remains to get this up to star quality, which I hope will not be very much. --Bigpeteb (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support This guide is incredibly in depth. SpartanFishy (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support. This is a well-written article with many of the features of our other star articles. I think this is a great star article standard with which to compare our other airport articles, and I can't see that much more could be added or changed to make it any better than it is. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - This is nearly there, with just a couple of issues. I don't really understand why Do is at the bottom of the page; wouldn't it make more sense to go as a subheading under Wait, or else in a separate section immediately following the same? It's also not clear whether those events are open to the general public, or whether you have to be an outbound passenger flying on that day in order to attend them. One final thing, I'd like to see a few more photos if possible. Otherwise, looking great. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bigpeteb: In case you haven't seen the above.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I indeed hadn't seen it. I'm pretty sure this is the only Airport article with a Do section, so there's really no standard for where to put it. I put it at the end since the only things listed are events that take place infrequently (either monthly or annually), on the basis that stuff travellers are likely to need and be able to do should take precedence. I don't object to moving it up or making it a subsection of Wait. I think for one of the events you would need to be a passenger that day; I'll add that to the description. --Bigpeteb (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I follow your logic, but since every other class of article positions 'Do' in roughly the same part of the article, I think it would make more sense from a reader's perspective to do the same here. If the 'Do' section were already very long, the worries about it interrupting the flow would be greater, but since it's only three listings, it should be alright. Let me know with a ping when you're done (no rush), and I'll be delighted to support the nomination.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Already done. --Bigpeteb (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support. It would still be nice to see a couple more photos, but that's hardly a deal breaker.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - I hate to admit it, but I'm surprised to see so much support. When I nominated it, I actually thought it fell a bit short, and was hoping other people would call out some issues or help address them. A number of restaurants have no description whatsoever. Most of them have no other details either, particularly hours, although that's perhaps more forgivable. There are a few duplicate listings between "Coffee" and "Restaurants", which I'm not sure how to deal with. Star status has always seemed like an extremely high bar to meet, and I don't want to set a precedent of being lax on airport articles just because researching them is more difficult. --Bigpeteb (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support - A little bit more images would be nice but otherwise good for a star. TravelAroundOz (talk) 04:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we've reached a consensus here of support. Anyone else agrees to pass the article? SHB2000 (talk) - The year of the 2000 Sydney Olympics 04:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that of the four support votes, two come from relatively new contributors who may be relatively less well versed on the ins and outs of what makes a good Star article. ATL is certainly a high-quality article (it's a previous Featured Travel Topic IIRC) and may well be at Star status, but we need the opinion of more users who do have that experience. I will have a look when I can. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

But considering we have no opposes, even from the two not new editors. SHB2000 (talk) - The year of the 2000 Sydney Olympics 05:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Consensus is not unanimity, nor is it created without participation. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

It usually takes at least weeks if not months to come to consensus on giving an article a star. The article in question should be exemplary in all aspects of coverage, style, illustrations and readability, among other things. Star consideration threads aren't normal threads that can or should be pushed through with only a few participants. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@SHB2000: If it helps, then I will oppose it... and I'm the one who nominated it in the first place! As I said in the nomination, I think it's one of our best airport articles, but I don't think it meets the high standard of being the best it can possibly be. I was hoping some of the more experienced editors would chime in to point out issues that still need to be fixed, and could maybe pitch in on things like finding more/better pictures which isn't something I've ever worked on. --Bigpeteb (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

If it's the pictures lacking (which I'd also say), I don't have any pics with me as I've never been there. But I will look onto flickr for better images. SHB2000 (talk) 10:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)