Talk:O'Hare International Airport

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Star nomination (slushed)[edit]

I'm nominating this one because I'd like to get some feedback on how an ideal airport article should be done. There are several at Guide throughout the site, but none above. This one has good photos and a sterling map by Peter, tons of up-to-date hotel listings, and a brachiosaurus. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 23:03, 10 November 2007 (EST)

I'm inclined to support, having not been there... the article looks nice, seems to cover it while keeping it to the point. One question... why is the airport map upside down? I find it confusing when up isn't north. But clearly not a big deal. – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 03:07, 11 November 2007 (EST)
  • Support. Although I feel pretty satisfied with the article, I'd also really like to hear some criticism, as we haven't hashed out with a lot of clarity what we want from our airport articles. Should we try to put eat and buy listings on the airport map or would that be excessive? Anything else that people would want on their airport map? I flipped the map upside down because a) I think that's mostly the way you are facing once you arrive—entrance/baggage check in the foreground and gates in the back, and b) that's how all the other O'Hare maps are displayed. My feeling was that the airport is enough of a world unto itself where the average traveler forgets which way is north. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 03:28, 11 November 2007 (EST)
Fair enough. As for what I want from an airport article.... the basics. What I kinda like about this is that it's not overdone, and not trying too hard... I like the simplicity of the eat sections, etc... you're at an airport... there's not that much to be said... I don't think having the restaurants on the map are necessary, unless they're necessary due to complication or if they're spread widely throughout a large terminal... in most airports if you say that a place in in terminal one, once you're in terminal 1 it's usually pretty clear where the food is. – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 03:39, 11 November 2007 (EST)
  • Support. Looks quite thorough and complete. That said, it seems like there's a lot of stuff around the airport and it's not really clear on how to get there, so perhaps we could have an overall map of the area, just to orient people as to where all those hotels and outer parking lots are? Then you have that in addition to the principal airport map. Just a thought, doesn't change my vote of support. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 15:02, 11 November 2007 (EST)
That's a really good point actually, I hadn't thought of that... it isn't clear at all where the hotels are, the most that is said about many of them is their distance from the airport. Descriptions of how to get there should be made at the very least, and an area map would be an even better idea – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 00:54, 18 November 2007 (EST)
I thought about making an area map, but I'm not sure it would really add much value, as I'm pretty sure all the hotels operate shuttles directly from the area just outside baggage claim. But I'll try and double check on that, and you're definitely right that we should make it clear how one gets to the listed hotels. Similarly, all the outer parking lots have shuttles taking you directly to the terminals and are themselves well signed from the described "get in#by car" routes. Still and all, the completionist/perfectionist in me wants to see the O'Hare area mapped eventually—it's just last on my list of priorities for Chicago right now. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:44, 18 November 2007 (EST)
Any more comments? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:13, 26 November 2007 (EST)
For some very weird reason I get an error everytime I try to view the page, saying that WT is experiencing a problem. Only that page. So I can't look at it... anyhow, did you fix the last issue we discussed and at least give a verbal sense of where the hotels are or how to get to them? I still think a map would be ideal, but at least the words should be there :) – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 23:49, 26 November 2007 (EST)
Let me know if the directions I've added help clarify where the hotels are (see here). If not, we'll table the nomination until a map exists. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 14:10, 1 December 2007 (EST)
Tells me everything I think i'd ever want to know about the airport, would do well as a star (WT-en) Prof Jack 07:38, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Thanks. I'll table the nomination for now until we have a map of the roads around there, and then it should be ready. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 17:49, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Airport accommodations[edit]

This service sounds useful, but maybe would be best for a more general article, like Tips for flying? The only thing that gives me pause in moving it is that it is based in Rosemont. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:58, 13 October 2010 (EDT)

Hotel listings[edit]

Nice list, but all listings for hotels outside of the airport must be deleted, or, better, moved to appropriate local guides. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I have done so. It seems like a shame—airport hotels are probably a lot more useful all in one list than scattered through guides to boring suburbs that no one reads (I'm exaggerating a bit). Especially if reading the guide on mobile or even worse if printed out. But I think this is unavoidable, given the no gaps/no overlap part of the Wikivoyage:Geographical hierarchy. --Peter Talk 06:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, it is less than an ideal solution, but no matter which approach we take, it will be some kind of compromise. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
This is really disappointing to see, and though I know that everyone involved has good intentions, this is a clear case of a policy being prioritized over the traveler (who's supposed to come first, after all). As anyone with experience there knows, O'Hare is an eco-system unto itself, connected to Chicago by a long, thin strip (due to old land-grab issues). Probably half (or more) of the city's hotel room capacity is around O'Hare, in hotels with "Chicago O'Hare" in the name. Would anyone argue that a traveler is better served by having to open several unmapped, outline suburb articles to compare O'Hare hotels and rates...or by having the "O'Hare" hotels in the O'Hare article? If there's a "compromise" to be made, it's better to inconvenience a policy than a traveler. Gorilla Jones (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with that, it is not convenient to spread airport hotels over other articles. Globe-trotter (talk) 01:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
You guys may be right, but you need to propose a change of policy at Wikivoyage talk:Airport Expedition, since your argument could be made just as well for several other airport articles (Frankfurt Airport comes to mind). Have a look at Wikivoyage talk:Airport Expedition#Airport template for current policy and discussion. The basic difficulty, though, is whether to allow duplication of listings; if so, in what discrete situations; and at what distance from airports we would draw the line on listings, other than actually within the airport. I don't think we would do better adopting ad hoc, inconsistent policies on these questions, but if you think we would, please make the argument there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I think we're all in agreement that what makes most sense for travelers is to have a consolidated list on this article. The problem is in how to go about it. The reason we avoid duplicate listings (in general) is that it's too hard to keep them updated if they're in multiple articles. That would change if we had a listings database, though, and hopefully we will get that through Wikidata at some point. In the meantime, though, maybe we should just swallow our discomfort with duplicate listings in the case of airport articles? To Ikan Kekek's point about where to draw the line—in cases I'm familiar with, it's usually pretty obvious what is and what isn't an "airport hotel." I think we could leave that judgement to the discretion of our writers. --Peter Talk 06:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I really think we really need to discuss this at Wikivoyage talk:Airport Expedition, because when things were discussed there, it wasn't at all obvious. How many miles away from the airport do we draw the line, or should we include every hotel that has a shuttle from the airport? Also, I thought we disallowed duplicate listings in large part because double listings constitutes touting, much of the time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion copied and continued at Wikivoyage talk:Airport Expedition#Airport hotels, O'Hare, and policy

Resumed discussion[edit]

The Quality Inn O'Hare Airport listing is an example of a dupe, as it's also in the Schiller Park guide. But at least it's 2 miles from the airport, whereas other listings are 5-6 miles from the airport, which strikes me as a bit far to be listed in a guide to an airport. So what do we do about the duplicated listings and just how far is too far to be an "airport hotel", for the purposes of a traveler? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

tdf[edit]

Now this is a Star nom, and because it is an international hub as well as being a North American hub, I'd like it to consistently use the 24 hr time format and not a mixture of AM/PM and am/pm and other time styles. A minor point I know, but it can be an example of best practice.

PS:The banner really looks great! (Pity that we don't have access to the secondary and tertiary headings in the horizontal Table of Contents. Are we going to implement drop down menus to give that necessary functionality later?) --W. Franke-mailtalk 13:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC) --W. Franke-mailtalk 13:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The local usage in the airport is AM/PM. On a related note, I would recommend against doing a repeat of your last star nomination disruption/hijacking with the goal of pushing your formatting "preferences" that have not been accepted in policy discussions, if you enjoy editing here. --Peter Talk 17:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I think you are missing one of my points. Yes, we produce polished articles for the simple pleasure of doing so and admiring our handiwork. But that's not (overtly) intended to be the main purpose (even if it provides one of the main motivations for many). It's not just locals that will be a substantial audience for this article. There will be travellers for whom ORD is an international transit stop and, rather than have a mixture of time formats, it should have one time format that is consistently used throughout. My recommendation is the 24 hour format since that is the least ambiguous and most widely used throughout the world, but I don't necessarily expect that recommendation to be followed.
Now, so as not to ignore your other comments (in the same way that you have ignored mine): Being truthful, I don't enjoy editing here with your constant sniping and threats (veiled or otherwise), but it would be nice to produce a travel guide that meets our stated goals. Please learn
i) not to to take every comment as a personal criticism and then create unnecessary drama by scattering unfounded accusations
ii) to assess constructive criticism dispassionately, assessing the content of that criticism rather than focussing on the person that made the criticism.
For the record, I still maintain that this is good advice and I am unaware of any policy page here right now that forbids using this valid Wikimarkup - no more than there is a policy page that forbids the use of umlauts when German names are shown. Horses for courses.
Off topic Explanatory Note for those readers who may be baffled as to why PeterFitzgerald is referencing our La Macarena article: PeterFitzgerald firmly believes (probably sincerely) that Alice and I are the same person. This is despite our both denying this and despite us both requesting checkuser and personal visits to verify our passports and home circumstances. On this topic he's like a terrier with a bone. He won't let go and move on. Some folks will realise the philosophical difficulties with us trying to prove a negative, but in this case the proof is rather easy - just come and visit us and/or run a check user. PeterFitzgerald will now probably say that we hold the same views about image formatting and the 24 hour clock (and probably a lot of other matters as well). That is true - but then our views are (outside of North America) hardly minority views. I am a German man living in Glasgow (and Alice is not) so why would you expect us both to share your US-centric views, PeterFitzgerald? don't answer that rhetorical question instead Play the ball, not the player.
Please let's get back to constructive discussion.
Your phenomenal institutional memory and wide ranging overview of Wikivoyage discussions means that I would genuinely like you to answer my question above: "...Are we going to implement drop down menus to give that necessary functionality later?" --W. Franke-mailtalk 18:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
As a starnom, this will have to follow policy (to which you are free to propose changes), not your preferences. You know this, and have been warned by several admins that blocks will follow if you do not stop these types of edits. I'm giving you an honest, straightforward warning here, as an administrator: a clear majority of WV admins are just waiting for you to "break the camel's back" so they can go forward with a ban nomination.
To your question about ToC dropdown menus, it's unlikely in the visible future, because of concerns raised about them at Wikivoyage talk:Banner Expedition#Add a "full TOC" button?. Everyone is in favor of section ToCs, which hopefully will become a technical possibility in the future. --Peter Talk 19:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


2nd Star nomination (slushed again)[edit]

At the risk of saturating this page with nominations, I think this is ready now to be our first star airport (and therefore something that can be used as an airport article exemplar). It was slushed before (despite only getting support votes!) for lack of a map showing area hotels and routes to them, but that is now not a concern, as the hotels have all been moved to the appropriate town/city articles, per policy. --Peter Talk 20:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. As I mentioned on the Airport Expedition talk page, I can't think of anything to complain about now and the new pictures really give the guide a nice, lively feel. Totally behind this one. PerryPlanet (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support with one tiny comment: It strikes me as a bit awkward to describe a dinosaur skeleton and a fighter plane replica as "amenities", which to me suggests things like public bathrooms, benches, drinking fountains, diaper changing stations, etc. Texugo (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Indeed! That looks like a legacy of the template change—that was a see/do section. --Peter Talk 23:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Might be better under "Wait". LtPowers (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. It sure looks complete to me, and very well written and illustrated. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I like the article, but the Eat section rubs me the wrong way. I know Peter's no fan of chain restaurants, but this seems a bit too disdainful. My wife and I ate at Macaroni Grill when we passed through in 2010 and I thought it was a pretty dang good meal for an airport. LtPowers (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I can't claim this article as my writing, sadly (just illustrations). (And it seems the intro was written before the Macaroni Grill was added by another user.) The Berghoff is genuinely worth seeking out, there's a Garrett's Popcorn that should now be added, and (the highly acclaimed Chicago Mexican chef) Rick Bayless has opened up a Mexican sandwich shop that is getting put in top five lists of airport restaurants worldwide. I think it's time for an update! --Peter Talk 05:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
      • I've added Tortas Frontera and Garrett's, clarified Berghoff a bit, and altered the intro. Does it look better? You know Macaroni Grill better than I would, so please do fix that up if you have a better description in mind. Airport food has gotten exponentially better in the past decade—I would have never guessed that I'd be checking my smart phone while traveling to hunt down "top airport restaurants" in between flights! --Peter Talk 05:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
        • I suppose it very well might be more oily than "standard Italian fare", I may not have the true Italian experience to counter that. But I don't think anyone goes to Macaroni Grill for authenticity. =) LtPowers (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • O'Hare_International_Airport#Get_around Peter: I'm a frequent flyer and i'm not a fan of US airports due to their complicated structure if you transfer between int'l and/or domestic flights. I think the section is a bit brief and maybe the flights section needs a table. From a travellers points i would find the article most helpful if i could easily understand how to transit. My only questions is in general, e.g. i arrive with Swiss and have a onward with United. Where do i need to go? Or if i arrive with US Airways and continue on United Express. Just a quick table to get an idea if air- or landside is possible? I stranded at the beauty once, so i know how polite but totally useless the ground staff at IAD is... jan (talk) 09:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I like the article and used O'Hare several times in the nineties but have not been back since and I am not a regular user of US airports. There is no details of transit arrangements, maybe just to say that there is no international transit without entering the country. Buy is very short - I would expect 5-10 lines on duty free alone. Add details of who can shop in Duty Free (international departures only?), how big the shops are and the range of products - are the shops in the various terminals clones or is one cheaper, bigger? How do airport prices compare with downtown? I am surprised that nearby makes no mention of places like Rosemont or Franklin Park. AlasdairW (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Hmm, questions about international transit... I've never actually taken an international flight through O'Hare. I'll see if I can figure these out. --Peter Talk 06:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
      • I don't know if this helps, but I took an international flight out of O'Hare and found it to be a miserable experience. Compared to the other terminals, Terminal 5 is a gray, soulless building with little ambient light, no decent food and no shops aside from a couple of Hudson newsstands and a single stand selling duty free items. Not even a proper shop, just a little stand. Other than to say a duty free shop exists, I don't think there's much else you can say. PerryPlanet (talk) 08:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Perry, my experience with O'hell is similar but if you are not a regular in this airport, navigation is an issue (especially int'l-domestic). The airport is ranked sixth in the worst airports in the US [1] which is of course not an offical source but a good indicator what travelers think. jan (talk) 09:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
The funny thing is that as far as airports go, I find O'Hare to be a perfectly decent place to wait for a plane - as long as you stay in the domestic terminals. Plenty of food options and if you get bored there's things to look at, like the dino skeleton or the walkway with all the neon. If it had free wifi it would be ideal. But heaven have mercy on your soul if you enter Terminal 5. PerryPlanet (talk) 09:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I have added a duty free sub-section to buy to describe the "somewhat limited" possibilities. This may be a bit of a negative review, but I think that some travelers will be expecting the supermarket scale duty free shops found elsewhere. Please alter this as necessary, especially if you have more recent experience of flying here. In researching this I also found some very limited free WIFI - a walled garden or rather walled flower pot that allows access to WP. AlasdairW (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support though shouldn't the Airline Lounges be added to "Wait"?Altaihunters (talk) 03:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Not now — Lead section needs to be expanded. Listings in Drink section are without descriptions. Too many listings under Sleep's midrange section. --Saqib (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Not quite yet — I don't think we need a huge lead for most airports and this article has a well written and balanced "Understand" section.
What does grate, as with so many of our destination articles, is the silly and inconsistent way that many of the images have fixed image widths that are either too tiny for those with large screens and fast connections and much too large for those struggling in the boondocks with narrow notebook screens. For the latter traveller, many of the headings are also messed up by poor image placement and absolute sizing. Where images can not be left as thumbnails of unspecified width, a move to relative sizing is now long overdue. -- Alice 10:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
That would be a policy change, and this is not the place to discuss policy changes -- only how the current article comports with current policy. Powers (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid I beg to differ.
Our Prime Directive is that the traveller comes first and we already have a policy that we prefer thumbnails for a number of reasons. However much some folks huff and puff, I've yet to see the consensus, never mind a rationale for banning relative sizing - it's been used for many years by those who are knowledgeable about relative image sizing and wish to respect the preferences of our users. Star articles are supposed to showcase our best work and this article with its disparate fixed image widths simply doesn't. -- Alice 19:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that everyone would consider not pursuing this line of discussion here. If Alice would like to continue posting more about it here, that doesn't mean anyone else needs to reply, as this is a staple topic of hers that always has the same discussion. I also won't comment further about this tangent in this thread. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree that discussion of relative image sizing does not belong here.
On the other hand, Alice does have a valid point; the current article has several different images sizes (five by my count), which looks odd and should be fixed. Pashley (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I do not think the current text covers international transit adequately. For one thing, it does not mention that having to go through customs & immigration to change planes is not just a local oddity; it is US gov't policy at all airports. It should link to Avoiding a transit of the United States.
I flew through O'Hare in late 2012, in from China, out to Canada. The experience was moderately awful with large crowds and long lines. There were different lines depending on passport. As a Canadian, I got about the same treatment as Americans but it still took over a hour to reach the passport-checker; I think it might be really awful for some nationalities. The actual staff I dealt with were fast, efficient and courteous, but there were nowhere near enough of them. Pashley (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Alice, I'm not suggesting to expand the "Understand" section. I'm fine with it. My concerns are with the lead section which barely have two lines. --Saqib (talk) 11:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
It's good that we both understand our respective concerns Saqib. However, that understanding still does not change my opinion that I don't think we need a huge lead for most airports. The lead sentences for this one are already in the Goldilocks zone; if you think differently, perhaps you could highlight what is missing and should be moved from the "Understand" section, from other sections or perhaps from the article entirely? -- Alice 05:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this is ready, too because it's the longest airport article if you look at Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson, New York LaGuardia, New York JFK apart from Chicago O'Hare. Also, There has been four supports, one not now, and one not quite yet. It is thorough. The first one was not quite yet, the second not now, and the rest support. The status just keeps getting better and better. I think it's time. --BadgerPacker

I see some complaints about the lede for this article. What could or should be added? Why, in this case, are two to-the-point sentences insufficient? As the "Understand" section makes clear, this is not an airport that merits someone rhapsodizing about it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Not yet: I was ready to support this article for star status and was making edits to the Drink section based on comments above. Incorrect hours of operation were listed and there were no phone numbers provided. Furthermore, they did not use the proper listing template. Several other sections do not use the proper listing templates (which would be expected of a star article). I honestly don't think anything needs to be done to the lead, but there is definitely work to be done here. GeneralPericles (talk) 12:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Is this something easily fixable? I am trying to decide whether to slush it now or wait for a few days while it gets fixed. —Ravikiran (talk)
  • The sleep listings appear to be all over the place (there's a $95 hotel in the Splurge section, and I've found prices much lower than the ones quoted for some hotels). And I'm still not sure we want hotels as far as 5 miles away in the airport article. Powers (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • OK so it looks like there are outstanding objections that haven't been addressed. This goes to the Slush pile for now. — Ravikiran (talk) 06:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)