Wikivoyage talk:Air travel information

Info on (AIR!) connections from airport ONLY in the original article

I've got an important proposal to make - since airline connections may change frequently, it is best all information pertaining to connections from an airport are kept in one article. Other interested articles can then link to it and we have only one article to maintain and keep up-to-date.

I am specifically writing about situations when an airport is an entry point for multiple cities/destinations (other than the city it is in, in whose article it is described), which is the case for most articles. Even for cities with airports, and even those ae major to have a separate article, there are often alternative airports than can be used.

In short, what I see now in some articles is that every article that mentions the airport may contain some information about connections from that airport, which often become outdated and contradict each other. What I am doing on sight is to remove this information from all articles but the original airport article or, if there is no article for that airport, the article for the city the airport is in / close by (e.g. for the Leipzig/Halle airport in Schkeuditz, that would be Leipzig). I leave some general information in the article of the destination that does not contain said airport on whether this airport is major / minor in terms of number and geographical breadth of connections, as well as all information on how to get from that airport to that destination, and link "Leipzig/Halle airport to [[Leipzig#By plane]].

I propose making the above a rule. What do you guys think? PrinceGloria (talk) 07:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a good proposal, though we may have some difficult choosing between an article when two cities share an airport. Either way, we do now need to clear up things like this, so thank you for raising the topic! --Nick ^talk 16:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I've flagged this page as a draft simply because it hasn't received a lot of discussion. Is there an advantage to having it separated into a separate article rather than included in Wikivoyage:What is an article and/or Wikivoyage:Where you can stick it? My personal preference is to usually have everything in one place rather than split among several articles, but if there are reasons for making exceptions for airport information then they should be discussed. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Not a draft

This page has been basically unchanged since 2013, perhaps it's time to remove the {{experimental}} tags? K7L (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the information may be good, but rather that adding yet another policy page about what gets an article or where to put information, would it be feasible to just merge this page into Wikivoyage:What is an article? Our site guidance is currently inconsistent and spread all over the place, so my preference would be to consolidate rather than expand it. Update: just noticed that I made the same comment (above) in 2013. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I think we should compare the letter of this policy with our current de facto usage and where they differ decide which we should change. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Airline terminology

Swept in from the pub

In the Planning your flight#Airlines article, I have tried to describe different categories of airlines. The international market is dominated by two categories: the first one being called major airline, legacy carrier, full-service carrier etc, the other one being called low-cost carrier, budget airline, startup airline, no-frills carrier etc. Which of these terms would be most practical to use on Wikivoyage? Should they be used universally? /Yvwv (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Or should this distinction be used at all? /Yvwv (talk) 13:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

IMHO these are seven distinct categories. --FriedhelmW (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

No they're not. Those are broadly speaking two categories that are a bit fuzzy on the edges. One is the "Ryanair-model" where you pay extra for everything, and the other is the "Lufthansa-model" that still seems to think flying is for business and rich people but they still give away free newspapers and the likes. Imho we should avoid both "full service" and "low cost" as they are more advertising than purely descriptive. "Startup" is not an analytical term, especially given the fact that Ryanair is actually older than e.g. Swiss Airlines or Brussel Airlines. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Make this an actual policy?

So apparently this was proposed like five years ago or so. I think we should have a discussion whether to make this entirely or in part a policy or whatnot or whether we should shelve it as a failed experiment... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)