Talk:London Stansted Airport
 |
This article was created as part of the Airport Expedition to decide upon and implement the best means of writing airport guides. If you have any ideas as to how the approach used here could be improved, please join our discussion there. |
Rationale for this being an airport article
[edit]Comparable low service airports like Hahn or Luton are dealt with as "city" articles or (in the case of e.g. Weeze) handled in the nearest region article. How is this one different? Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think it makes sense to keep this a separate article. It is not connected to the local towns and villages and is a popular European airport. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Is the airport exceedingly complex or huge though? Because the article doesn't quite convince me that's the case. Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Eat section
[edit]A little too much detail about popular chains but no information on which are airside and which are landside. Has been a while since I have been through this airport, can sort some of this out but not all. Can anyone provide input on this? --Traveler100 (talk) 06:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Done. Just as throwaway mentions though, as same-samey chains all in the same place all with the same hours IMO they don't merit listings. Grahamsands (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Road itinerary footers
[edit]This has been bugging me. What is the rationale for the standard footer showing highways through a locality? It's covered by "Get in" where relevant, but it's often not the best travel route; indeed WV advises against taking a car into many big cities. So it's falsely prioritising King Car. And it's especially odd for an airport article, as what you don't do at Stansted is drive there, experience it then drive on elsewhere. So I've taken the liberty of deleting this particular example. Grahamsands (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- They are supposed to also be used for railways and whatnot, but overall it is used for highways far too often. Maybe discuss the wider issue in the pub? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- The way I see it, it's an easy way to list areas a traveler would likely go next. Better to have them in a routebox than missing from the section at all, although, of course, the prose in this particular article covers most of them. Either way, I'd advise against removal here; a traveler may be planning on taking the M11, and so may want to click through to see what the principal stops are. Every other page along the highway has the box, and removing it here would break the chain. If the concern is that the particular route is not commonly used to/from the airport, I think a better solution would be to add some more commonly used routes, be they train or otherwise, above the M11. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 15:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- If I was driving to Stansted from somewhere like York, I might be interested that Saffron Walden was a nearby town on the route. This would allow me to plan to spend a couple of hours there before going to the airport, which would be dropped if there was delays and I was running late. AlasdairW (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- The way I see it, it's an easy way to list areas a traveler would likely go next. Better to have them in a routebox than missing from the section at all, although, of course, the prose in this particular article covers most of them. Either way, I'd advise against removal here; a traveler may be planning on taking the M11, and so may want to click through to see what the principal stops are. Every other page along the highway has the box, and removing it here would break the chain. If the concern is that the particular route is not commonly used to/from the airport, I think a better solution would be to add some more commonly used routes, be they train or otherwise, above the M11. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 15:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)