Talk:Tocumen International Airport
Tocumen International Airport is currently the busiest airport in Central America. and it is a major access point to the Caribbean and South America.
For the purpose of a travel wiki, this airport should be considered a significant hub.
15,616,065 people travel through yearly.
Gimhae International Airport has a page and it has a similar figure
Perhaps the numbers will never reach JFK or PEK size, but travellers also want to go to places that are a little out of the way of HUGE and this airport is a very key hub after options in Miami.
I vote to keep it! Central American and the Caribbean represent!
J-wonder (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- I think this airport is an important international hub. Also, w:List of the busiest airports in Latin America says it's the 10th busiest airport in Latin America. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- A lot of us don't think Gimhae merits its own article, so I don't think that's a powerful argument. Nor is the idea that every region deserves its own airport articles - do you think there's a huge, complex airport in the East African Islands region? And "travellers also want to go to non-huge airports" is a total slippery slope! However, the arguments about the amount of traffic seem good (as does the argument about it being the busiest airport in Central America, since, pace my Devil's advocate remark about East African Islands, Central America is quite a significant draw for tourists), so I think we should let the article develop and see where it goes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- I have tried to fit this article into the template; maybe User:J-wonder could make her/his case by filling out those fields. If there is nothing to put into those fields, it might indicate that this airport might have to be merged back. Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
What to do with this article?
[edit]Unfortunately it seems that the main author of this article is not active here any more. The validity of this article was called into question almost as soon as it was created... What should we do? Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- If it's not a big or complex enough airport, merge and redirect to Panama City. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Sure, merge it. Ground Zero (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- Or, if no-one is still interested in merging it, let's take off the merge tag. Ground Zero (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't like your campaign of what looks to me like deleting merge tags not only of articles that shouldn't have them (which is great to do) but those that clearly should be merged. What's your argument against a merge? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- If no-one is willing to do the merge, including the nominator, then it's not going to happen and the tag is just cluttering the article. The discussion here remains as a record of support for a merger if someone comes along layer and is willing to do it. The tag does nothing for travellers but get in the way. We shouldn't put our own organizational stuff permanently ahead of getting information to travellers. Sometimes tags look like a way of getting other people to do something that some thinks should be done. We don't have enough editors for that to work, as is shown by the fact that we have merge tags sitting on articles for months at a time. Part of my campaign has also been to execute a bunch of mergers to clear things up (here, here and here), but I'm not going to do all of them. Looking at this article again, there is enough content for it to stand on its own, even if it isn't compete. Ground Zero (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think it meets the test at Wikivoyage:Airport Expedition. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- "Does the airport service connecting flights?" -- Wikipedia says "The airport serves as the homebase for Copa Airlines and is a regional hub to and from The Caribbean, South, North and Central America and additionally features routes to some European cities."
- "Does the airport have enough food and shopping options to fill out an entire "Buy" and "Eat and Drink" section?" -- it has 2 casual restaurants, 5 bars and cafes, and 10 fast food places, and 43 shops off various kinds.
- It serves 15 m passengers annually, 50% more than Chubu Centrair International Airport, and Ministro Pistarini International Airport, which have articles. Ground Zero (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think it meets the test at Wikivoyage:Airport Expedition. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- If no-one is willing to do the merge, including the nominator, then it's not going to happen and the tag is just cluttering the article. The discussion here remains as a record of support for a merger if someone comes along layer and is willing to do it. The tag does nothing for travellers but get in the way. We shouldn't put our own organizational stuff permanently ahead of getting information to travellers. Sometimes tags look like a way of getting other people to do something that some thinks should be done. We don't have enough editors for that to work, as is shown by the fact that we have merge tags sitting on articles for months at a time. Part of my campaign has also been to execute a bunch of mergers to clear things up (here, here and here), but I'm not going to do all of them. Looking at this article again, there is enough content for it to stand on its own, even if it isn't compete. Ground Zero (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't like your campaign of what looks to me like deleting merge tags not only of articles that shouldn't have them (which is great to do) but those that clearly should be merged. What's your argument against a merge? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Or, if no-one is still interested in merging it, let's take off the merge tag. Ground Zero (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Sure, merge it. Ground Zero (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: Thinking about this issue of our housekeeping tags being in articles where they draw the attention of readers to Wikivoyage's flaws, I am wondering about the idea of putting these tags on the article's talk pages instead. That way, they still show up in lists of articles needing attention, which I think may be your concern, but aren't in the faces of casual readers. This would be the equivalent of hanging our laundry indoors so that the neighbourhood looks better. I realise that occasionally a casual reader will come along and fix our problems for us, but that seems unlikely in the case of major work like merging articles. (For tags that are intended to apply only to certain sections, the tagger would have to specify which section when putting the tag on the talk page.) I should probably propose this on some other page, but I'd be interested in your thoughts. Regards, Ground Zero (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- I would support that. And maybe you're right that this airport does meet the test at Airport Expedition and the article just needs more work. So in this case, I now support removing the merge tag. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think tags should be on the talk page in all cases. Style tags for instance warn that the article (or section) doesn't look like it should. If and when we get an "outdated" tag that has benefits to our readers that I don't think I have to further describe... Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Removal of merge tag
[edit]It seems clear that this is a legitimate article, based on the criteria at Wikivoyage:Airport Expedition. I've plunged forward and removed the merge tag. If you object, please explain why. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
The aforementioned redirect still points to the Panama city article. Should this be changed? Hobbitschuster (talk) 08:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Done. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)