Wikivoyage talk:Airport Expedition

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archived discussions

Wikivoyage talk:Airport Expedition/Archive 2013-2018

Planning for huge airport articles[edit]

Swept in from the pub

As I understand it, if there are 100 flights every day at an airport, it can have its own article. So, why doesn't Salt Lake City's airport have an article? According to the article for Salt Lake City, there are more than 120 flights a day at the airport (for one airline, imagine what the total number must be). If it wasn't already clear, I propose we create an article for the airport at Salt Lake, but I would probably need help from others. I'm not sure about SJC, but I expect it's pretty high, as it seems from the wikipedia article.

Over the years, I would think the number of airport with at least 100 flights a day has increased dramatically, and this may not show in our Wikivoyage articles. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

It is not about number of flight but about what there is to say about the airport. If the airport is a major hub with many services catering for passenger such as restaurants, shops, entertainment and hotels then it can have its own article. However even in those cases you should start by expanding the information about the airport on the city page. When the amount of information start to dominate and get out of hand there, then move to its own article. Do not create an article that is almost empty just because it could or should deserve its own article. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
That's what I mean about needing help. I fear that, by myself, the articles will not have the information I think they should have. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I think Traveler100 is right: you're putting the cart before the horse. When there is enough info on an airport in a city article to warrant splitting it out, then create an airport article. Don't create an airport article just because it could qualify. I'm not discouraging you from creating new content, I'm just saying that Salt Lake City and San Jose airports don't need their own articles yet. As for me, I'd rather spend time creating content for and cleaning up destination articles, than creating new airport articles, but you're free to work on whatever you want to work on. Ground Zero (talk)
Ditto from me as well.
I was going to ask where "100 flights per day" came from, but then I found it on What is an article. In any case, that's a poor metric. 100 flights per day is a very small number. Just picking an arbitrary example, Indianapolis's airport sees more than 300 commercial flights per day, but it's certainly not significant or complex enough to merit its own article.
WV:Airport Expedition has another set of criteria, and taken in conjunction I would hope that the underlying intention is clear: it's not about the number of flights or the physical size or any such measurable numbers, it's about how "difficult" is the airport for travellers. Airports by design tend to be laid out similarly and are usually easy to navigate. If you've seen one, you've seen 'em all. The airports we create articles for are the exceptions: they're so huge that their layouts require explanation rather than letting travellers just read the signs, and/or they're places where travellers are likely to spend a few hours or more and will want to know which of the hundreds of restaurants are good or where they can sleep.
Having done some editing on it recently, I would actually say that Orlando International Airport is an example of an airport that maybe doesn't need to be an article. It's not a hub, the layout looks fairly simple, and there's a paltry selection of restaurants, almost all of which are chains, and few that are good enough to recommend. The most useful information there is ground transportation, but that could be folded back into the city article if necessary.
So don't go crazy creating new airport articles just yet. Try working on one of the outline-status articles first like Miami International Airport or Newark Liberty International Airport. Having worked on a couple myself, it's hard to research anything inside an airport, and even harder to come up with good recommendations for Buy/Eat/Drink. --Bigpeteb (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I would think that text about "100 flights" is from 2004, when perhaps that was a lot. Perhaps that text in WV:What is an article? should be changed? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
100 flights is a simple objective minimum (defined in 2013). In some cases finding the number of flights means counting them on a list of departures, and I don't fancy counting 250 or 500 on a list when discussing an article. I think that it is useful to have articles for international transit airports, and I am not sure what limit would start to limit these (which includes isolated islands where all flights are international). AlasdairW (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Okay, but still, I think WV:What is an article should be changed at least a little in some way to reflect that the number of flights is not considered a standard for what is a large airport and what is not. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

London Stansted is a good example of earlier arguments. It's well over the 100 flights threshold, it's not particularly huge, but it merits detail that would unbalance a simple "get in" listing. Although it's badged "London" it's some way out, forming a little township in its own right. (The residents of historic Stansted are understandably peeved at this.) There are various little quirks and crafty wrinkles that the traveller might appreciate knowing. By contrast London Luton is almost as busy but is sufficiently described under "Luton". Grahamsands (talk) 10:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Another good example is Mactan-Cebu International Airport which is currently a redirect to a section of a city article. There's a fair bit of text in the city article, but I (who wrote much of that text) do not think it needs its own article yet mainly because there's not a lot to say.
It might need an article soon; they've just opened a new terminal and are adding a second runway. w:Mactan–Cebu International Airport says over 10 million passengers and over 86,000 flights (237/day on average) in 2017. My guess is it a good example of a borderline case; once someone adds text about the new terminal it might be worth moving it out. Pashley (talk) 11:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if I agree about Mactan-Cebu International Airport. A lot of the length in that description comes from a laundry list of all the airlines and destinations, which I feel is something that does not belong in WV most of the time (not for a large hub airport like this). It's fine in WP where such encyclopedic knowledge is appropriate, and where there are more editors to keep such lists up to date. In WV, such a list is of minimal use to travelers. For offline reading, I can't imagine what use such information would be. Online, they can easily find the same information elsewhere if they need it, and many times they'll probably discover it themselves while searching for airfares. --Bigpeteb (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I was of the opinion there was a soft floor of roughly 20 million pax/p.a. or a damn good reason otherways... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Canadian Airports[edit]

I notice that the only Canadian airport with an article is Toronto Pearson International Airport. I think at the very least, the airport in Vancouver should get its own article since it is one of the main North American gateways to East Asia, and arguably Montreal's airport is also significant enough to warrant its own article. Unfortunately, I've never been to Vancouver, while I've only been to Montreal once, so I'll most certainly need help if we go ahead with this. What do you guys think about listing these two under "Future Targets"? The dog2 (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Good question. I've always thought Vancouver's airport is a borderline case. It's a gateway to East Asia as you say and it has good passenger volumes (25 mn last year (2018)). On the other hand, it's a pretty straightforward airport to navigate, there are only two terminals (excluding the South terminal, which very few people are going to use), one hotel on site, fairly typical airport shops and an average number of restaurants (which are mostly fast food). I also live in Vancouver, so the airport is just an in and out for me. I don't think I can add more that what's already in Vancouver#Get in. If someone has experience using it to connect/stay overnight, it would be good to get that perspective.
For Montreal, I've transited through it twice on connecting flights. My impression from those brief visits is it's a larger and more complicated airport to navigate than Vancouver. I was also looking for specific (in my mind) Montreal specialties of Montreal smoked meat and French croissants. From my experience, I think Montreal's airport would need an article more than Vancouver, but as I said above, Vancouver's airport is an in and out for me so that colours my perspective. -Shaundd (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I can write a little when it comes to Montreal, but I've only been through the U.S. departures wing. Someone else will have to fill in for the domestic and international wings. And as far as statistics go, Vancouver is Canada's second busiest airport after Toronto, so it definitely has a higher passenger volume than Montreal even though Montreal may be a bigger city. The dog2 (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Okay, but remember: size and importance are not absolute criteria for whether an airport merits an article. If an airport is easy to navigate, and doesn't have many noteworthy restaurants or stores, then what else would there be to write about? I don't know anything about Vancouver to decide that, but want to make sure it's not forgotten after I spent some time editing Orlando International Airport and realized it possibly doesn't merit an article, either. --Bigpeteb (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't know about the shops and restaurants at Vancouver since I've never been there. As for Montreal, there are several cafes and a duty free shop airside in the U.S. departures section, but no luxury brands like what you get in London Heathrow, Hong Kong or Tokyo Haneda international terminal. I guess I'm not the best person to judge but the only airport I've ever gotten lost in is Dubai (considering I've flown out of many major airports like JFK, Heathrow, Hong Kong, both of Tokyo's airports and Survarnabhumi), and that is because the signage to connecting flights in the arrival concourse is bad, and the staff were very unhelpful. The dog2 (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate maps in airport articles[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Are duplicate maps allowed in airport articles? See:

--Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

When both are potentially useful to the traveler, then why wouldn't we? For example, the Munich article seems to have a dynamic map of the current airport and a static drawing of future expansion plans. But in the DFW article, they feel a bit more redundant.
Dulles doesn't seem to have two maps. The second one seems to just be a photo of a sign at the airport. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, in the DFW article the dynamic map doesn't seem to add much. I'd say evaluate it on a case-by-case basis, with the recognition that double maps are more often useful in airport articles than in most types of articles, due to the value of an airport map with clearly outlined and labeled terminals (harder to achieve with a dynamic map). —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: Yes, you're right, that's a photo, which I count as a map; you don't have to count it that way. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Granger, I think you're right about the value of a simple map. An airport map could emphasize how to get there (highways, bus stations, parking lots, etc.), which general part of the airport you want to be in (Terminal A is over there), or how to get around once you're inside (trains between terminals, location of restaurants, etc.). Two or three maps that each do just one of those things well would often be better for the harried traveler than a single map that tries to be all things to all people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Nominations for the removal of dynamic maps[edit]

I have listed here the articles which have dynamic maps that serve little or no purpose and, in my opinion, could be removed. Please feel free to support or oppose below.

--Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure, that makes sense. If they do become useful down the road (for instance to display POI markers), we can always add them back. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I'd plunge forward and just remove them. Gizza (roam) 22:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes Done --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Airports closed due to conflict[edit]

Looking for opinions on the best way to handle airports currently closed due to conflict? This is particularly relevant for airports in Syria and Libya but there are a few others around the world. Should listings and references be:

  1. kept with text stating currently not operational.
  2. deleted from city, region and country pages.
  3. commented out from city, region and country pages so can be added back later.

Although some will be closed for some time to come, airport do eventually come back in to operation, for example recently Jaffna (JAF IATA). --Traveler100 (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I would generally prefer 1, for the nearest city page, but it can commented out elsewhere. It is useful to the traveller to know that the airport has closed, as there will be information about the airport elsewhere. Even if the airport has stopped having commercial flights it may still be used by relief agencies, or for evacuation flights. AlasdairW (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

IATA code[edit]

Well it took a couple of years but all airports referenced using {{IATA}} code now have a link to them (2279 at time if writing this). --Traveler100 (talk) 12:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Airport hotels, O'Hare, and policy[edit]

Discussion copied from Talk:O'Hare International Airport#Hotel listings: 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 above from Talk:O'Hare International Airport#Hotel listings

We don't allow duplicate listings within articles to prevent touting; we don't allow listings in more than one article because of no gap, no overlap. But these airport articles essentially exist outside the hierarchy, and it is not reasonable to ask readers to browse a bunch of bland suburban non-articles to find the listings. So I still think the biggest problem is keeping them updated across more than one article. As for what is an airport hotel? It's a hotel that wouldn't exist but for the airport. I'm much less concerned with that question, I guess, than others above—it seems easy. --Peter Talk 07:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
For people joining in, this was what the list looked like. --Peter Talk 07:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I would demur on the idea that not allowing listings of the same hotel in more than one article is not an issue of touting. Many times, publicists have attempted to list the same hotel (restaurant, shop, etc.) in numerous articles. However, I get your main point, which is that airport articles are outside the geographic hierarchy. I'll be interested to see what others think, because I have doubts about that idea. Airports occupy discrete pieces of land. That said, the idea of listing "airport hotels" in Airport guides is reasonable - if we can agree on what an airport hotel is and is not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I definitely prefer the idea of having airport hotels included in the airport articles. Really huge airports (the kind that would be worthy of an article) are their own little worlds, and the many hotels that surround them are part of that system feeding into that airport. I understand Ikan's concern about deciding what is and is not an airport hotel (we probably don't want any hotel that happens to have a shuttle to the airport listing themselves in the airport article), but I think Peter has hit on the best definition. I don't think we need anything more specific than that; airport hotels generally have little to advertise on except their proximity to the airport. PerryPlanet (talk) 08:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any guidance on distinguishing airport hotels from non-airport hotels either, but if we are going to put those hotels in the airport article, I would prefer to continue avoiding duplication, which we can do by putting a note (perhaps templated) in the suburb article, saying "Additional airport hotels can be found in the article for XXX Airport.". Texugo (talk) 11:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

On the face of it, I strongly agree with Texugo. If "airport hotels" outside of airports will be listed in articles about airports (and I have no objection to this, providing that we can come to a workable agreement on what hotels are and are not "airport hotels"), they shouldn't be listed in any other article. I think it's unnecessary to create an exemption from the "one listing, site-wide" policy, and policing duplications by touters and well-meaning non-touters could become another time-waster if we open the door to duplicate listings in some cases (especially if the criteria are not extremely clearly defined). Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I think it's great to have clearly defined and easily accessible policies, but they should never be absolute or applied without prioritising the traveller's interests, as Gorilla Jones points out. Earlier in this topic Peter suggested that our current policy is no "...duplicate listings within articles to prevent touting..." (which seems sensible) whereas you seem to be suggesting "one listing, site-wide" is our current policy. Where can I actually read our current policy, please? Obviously if and when the database for listings arrives, the update problem will cease, but in the meantime I would prefer to clarify that Peter's version of policy actually applies.--W. Franke-mailtalk 12:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Have a look at don't tout, W. Frank:
"Also note that businesses should be listed in only one article [emphasis supplied] for the town or district in which the business operates; if an article about the town has not yet been created, create it." —The preceding comment was added by Ikan Kekek (talkcontribs)
I think Ikan Kekek's assertion is correct. It follows logically from the combination of our no gaps/no overlaps geographical breakdown and the fact that we don't allow city listings to be duplicated in region articles (Template:Movetocity) and we don't allow district listings to be duplicated in main city articles (Template:Movetodistrict. Given these other policies, there are no cases left where duplication between articles would be allowed. Texugo (talk) 12:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
If that's the case, then we need to create an exception clearly enunciated in the relevant policies for the clearly defined category of Airports that have their own articles (they have their own templates, eg: {{guideairport}}). --W. Franke-mailtalk 12:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
That is precisely the notion Ikan and I are objecting to. It would be better not to create a loophole for hotel touts to get their hotel listed twice, and simply point the suburb article reader to the airport article for additional airport hotel listings. Texugo (talk) 13:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Better for whom?
The jetlagged and weary traveller with a small screen and a bad connection (and, unavoidably, the airport hotel that might unavoidably get listed in two different pages) or
editors that might not be able to explain quickly/adequately/convincingly that the double listing being removed is not an "Airport hotel"? Sorry! I didn't read your argument carefully enough. I now see that your proposition is to list "Airport hotels" in the large and well written (almost by definition) Airport article and have the (probably already sparse and sad) suburban article's "Sleep" section (probably) just contain a pointer to the Airport article for hotel listings. That seems reasonable and I would support that. --W. Franke-mailtalk 13:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I also think the no gap/no overlap policy has served the guides well, but listing airport hotels in suburbian semi-non-articles doesn't make any sense. These hotels exist only because of passengers transferring flights, so readers will expect them in the airport articles. I do agree that a hotel listing should then only be listed in the airport article to avoid duplication. Globe-trotter (talk) 13:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone disagree that it's most helpful for the traveler to have airport hotels collected in one place (the airport article)? While my janitorial bent also makes me sensitive to anything that may benefit hotel chain owners, concerns for the traveler should come before concerns about marketers. It's not helpful for travelers to have hotels listed in destination guides other than the ones in which the listing is located, but that's not true in the case of airports. So ideally I think we have a listings database (so an update anywhere is an update everywhere), and we list them in the airport and the suburban semi-non-articles.
In any rate, the solution of keeping the listings in the airport article, and noting this in empty sleep sections of the semi-non-articles works for me as a second best option. Travelers really are just looking to scan one list for their preferred chain, not to crawl through articles like Elk Grove Village and Schiller Park—or even worse to print those all out? --Peter Talk 18:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Thinking about it, that solution is identical to how we've handled embassy/consulate listings. --Peter Talk 18:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I really think it makes sense to stick to the "listing in one article only" guideline. If a hotel exists primarily to serve the airport then list it in the airport article and not in the city article. If a city is adjacent to an airport with lots of hotels, than a note in the city article's "Sleep" section to check the airport article avoids the need for duplication. We've all seen dozens (if not hundreds) of hotel listings for properties that are "conveniently located near XYZ airport", despite often being as far as 20-30 miles away, and it doesn't make sense for editors or travelers if we open the door to having these show up in airport and city articles. Similarly, in some places the draw of the town is primarily the airport (I'm thinking of Keflavik in particular), and in such cases a "list hotels in both articles" policy would definitely lead to unnecessary duplication. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I would propose to geographically divide up listings of airport hotels in airport guides, so that, for example, in the O'Hare guide, the hotel listings could be subdivided O'Hare, Elk Grove Village, Schiller Park, etc., with a note in the "Sleep" sections of Elk Grove Village, et al., directing readers to, for example "O'Hare International Airport#Elk Grove Village." I hope my suggestion is clear; do you all understand what I'm suggesting? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I think we have a useful compromise emerging. A couple questions linger, though: 1) Should there be a separate article for an airport like Keflavík International Airport, when the destination is more or less synonymous with the airport, and the guide can/will cover everything an airport guide would? 2) I understand why Ikan Kekek's suggestion (so that hotel guests are directed to the right guide to find out about restaurants and mini-attractions by the hotel they ultimately choose), but there is a disadvantage to losing the price categories. In the address field of each listing, the town name should be listed, so couldn't we just link that to the appropriate destination guide? --Peter Talk 19:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's one possibility. The other one is to have price categories within each geographical subdivision of the airport article's "Sleep" section. If the overall "Sleep" section is relatively short, it won't matter much how it's subdivided, but if it's longer, I think my proposed solution may work better. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I prefer Peter's suggestion, simply because price is more likely to be a deciding factor than which suburb surrounding the airport you stay in. PerryPlanet (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
You're probably right about that, and if the list gets too long, secondary subdivisions by location can be made, but I realize that it probably does make more sense to subdivide by price. There is a procedural issue, though: This will be one case in which the name of the town would have to be included in every listing, which is a deviation from usual procedure. If we group everything first of all by location, that deviation doesn't have to take place, but it's hardly a make-or-break issue. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
(responding to Peter re: Keflavik) I think an airport article is primarily about the airport itself - flights, airport amenities, etc, while the town article is about the town, its restaurants, sights, activities, etc. In the case of a town like Keflavik, two articles seems to make sense - the town article lists restaurants, hotels, etc in the town, the airport article (if one was created) talks about flights and the airport property. With respect to hotels, I would think that hotels that aren't either on the Keflavik airport property or immediately outside of the airport property would stay in the town article.
Getting back to the point about where to draw the line, there are perhaps a dozen hotels within a half mile of LAX on Century Blvd that I would describe as clearly being airport hotels, and thus belonging in the LAX article rather than the El Segundo article, but I would think that anything further out than that is not obviously an "airport" hotel and would best be handled in the appropriate city article (with pointers from the airport article to those city articles). -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
When I built the original O'Hare list, I think my rule of thumb was that hotels had to be within a mile of the airport. (That may not be useful at other airports, of course.) In terms of touts, they zero in on the Chicago article, not the individual suburb articles — they know those hold no value. (Look at the 'Sleep' section in the abandoned Chicago article on WT and you'll see what I mean.) I'd also suggest that the hotel listings remain sorted by price. From the perspective of a traveler who's taken a shuttle from the airport to their hotel, there's little to distinguish Schiller Park from Elk Grove Village, et al. I've stayed at O'Hare hotels 4 times, I think, without knowing which suburb I was in. Gorilla Jones (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
What was ultimately decided on this topic? It seems to me, we ended up with only hotels that are actually within airports being listed in airport guides, and yet the consensus in this thread seemed to be leaning toward some clear distance (1 km/1/2 mile?) from an airport being appropriate to list in an airport guide. I'm OK with things remaining the way they are, but I have to wonder whether the lack of change was due to inertia and loss of initiative, rather than the lack of a consensus behind this change. Can we reopen this discussion, or is it best to let this slumbering dog lie? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd certainly like to see this discussion re-opened; it looked like we had a strong consensus forming here that was never followed up on. PerryPlanet (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Initially we agreed only hotel at the airport, however I think it should be extended to hotels that offer shuttle buses to and from the airport. Also allow duplication of these hotels in the city articles if one exists. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
"Hotels that offer shuttle buses" is an extremely large category in many cities. Probably dozens, as many as 15 miles away, even in a case like Rochester (New York). Powers (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Like Powers says, the presence of a shuttle bus isn't really specific enough; there are cities with downtown hotels (that no one would consider "airport hotels") that offer shuttles to the airport. I still think the most useful definition of an airport hotel is the general one: a hotel that exists primarily to serve airport travelers. PerryPlanet (talk) 16:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Re: Traveler100, if I'm reading the discussion above correctly, the consensus would have been not to allow duplication. I'd be happy with some wording like "Hotels that exist primarily to serve airport travelers that are located within the immediate vicinity of the airport may be included in either the airport article or a city article, but not both. When a city is home to hotels that are listed in an airport article then the "Sleep" section of the city article should include a pointer to the airport article." "Immediate vicinity" is obviously open to interpretation, but that should give us some leeway for cases like Antananarivo where the airport is 45 minutes outside of the city, and the closest "airport hotel" is several miles from the airport, vs. an airport like LAX where there are a dozen hotels located just outside of the airport, and thus it would be a stretch to describe a hotel located several miles away as an "airport hotel". -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I like that wording; it's specific enough to give a good sense of what we're looking for, but general enough to allow for leeway when needed. PerryPlanet (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
So for example how should Frankfurt Airport be handled. I have deleted a couple of times the hotels that are in Frankfurt-Niederrad a couple of times from the airport page as they are in the city suburb not the airport and used not just by people going through the airport. But on the other hand the HI on the outskirts of Mörfelden really only there to serve the airport but is just as far away as hotels in Langen, [Kelsterbach] and Raunheim which also cater mainly for the airport but also serve people visiting companies in those towns.--Traveler100 (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with Frankfurt, but if you'd consider those communities far from the airport, then they probably wouldn't be considered within the immediate vicinity, per Ryan's wording. If there's a lot of much closer options to the airport, might as well stick to those and leave the more far-flung options to the individual town articles. PerryPlanet (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Revived discussion[edit]

[unindent] I've unarchived the above thread for further discussion, because the topic of whether or when to list accommodations outside of airports in airport articles just came up at Talk:Tokyo Haneda Airport. Did we ever fully resolve this question? Here's what's currently in Wikivoyage:Airport article template#Sleep:

Where can you sleep/nap/rest inside the airport, including on chairs and benches. How comfortable will you be, and will you get in trouble if you stretch out or stay too long.

Hotel options on or connected to the airport, and an overview of nearby neighborhoods offering hotel accommodation. If the airport is adjacent to a well-defined neighborhood and travellers can easily find hotels from that district article, link to it. However, airports are often not close to anything, and the airport article may be the best place to list a few hotels (ones whose defining feature is "being close to the airport").

So it sounds like that means hotels shouldn't be listed in airport articles unless they're either in the airport or the airport is so far from anyplace of note that there are hotels that are there only because they're close to the airport. To me that would mean that a hotel (or in this case, hostel) that could be listed in a Tokyo district guide probably shouldn't be in the Tokyo Haneda Airport article, if we take the language in Wikivoyage:Airport article template#Sleep literally. However, if you read through the unarchived discussion above, there seemed to be a consensus to list hotels perhaps a kilometer or two from airports in urban areas that exist solely to serve people who want to be near the airport (and maybe several km further from airports far outside of cities that have nothing much around them but do have airport articles), although I believe most of the participants in the above discussion wouldn't support also listing such hotels in any other article. So what do you think? JRHorse, feel free to participate if you like. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the guideline is clear and should be kept. Hotels on the airport ground should be in the airport article. Hotels in a neighbourhood covered by a city or district article should be in that article and a link to that page in the airport sleep section with details how to get there. There a a few borderline ones, the hostel in Tokyo/Ota is not one of them, where there are hotels outside the airport grounds but not near anywhere else and clearly part of the airport infrastructure that can be in the airport article. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Take a look at Frankfurt Airport#Sleep, which I just updated. Te article section starts with text mentioning town articles in the area, some of which have hotels with airport shuttles. Then shows hotels in airport's ground. There are then a group of hotels in an area not in Fraport's grounds but in the built-up area around the airport and not connected directly to the city of Frankfort. Then there is a mention of hotel in Niederrad district of Frankfurt, as most of these are there because of the airport and have shuttles to it but are in the city limits proper. There is then a Nearby section mentioning cities a little further away that may be better places to stay if do not need to be right by the airport. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Specifically for Haneda airport, what I have used and should be mentioned are Limousine buses that run to hotels in the city. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your participation and for the link, Traveler100. I still don't really find the guideline that clear, but I'm happy to defer to you on Frankfurt Airport#Sleep. There are problematic gray areas, though, in other cases. For example, my girlfriend and I once stayed overnight at an America's Best Value motel in El Segundo several years ago because we wanted to be close to LAX and avoid the likelihood of ending up in horrible traffic if we had spent another night in Santa Barbara and tried driving down from there all the way to the airport. It was close enough to the airport for us to smell the exhaust from the airplanes when we were standing outside and planes were taking off or landing, but El Segundo is also a real neighborhood, and by driving a short distance for L.A., we went to a marvelous Middle Eastern restaurant, though that was actually in Hawthorne (California). Since LAX is in L.A. and several neighborhoods are close to it but still require some form of ground transportation to get to, I wouldn't support adding any hotel listings to Los Angeles International Airport#Sleep unless there are hotels in the airport itself. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
If the hotels also serve another place where people actually visit, the hotels can definitely be put in that article (but with a link from the airport article's sleep section). If a hotel on the other hand is on the airport or otherwise nearby and only there because of the airport, I'd definitely put it in the airport article itself where readers would be looking for it. I would rather not create articles for random bedroom suburbs or villages with nothing of travel interest just to have somewhere to put the hotels. Ypsilon (talk) 12:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
In other words, it's a judgment call. The link from the airport article's sleep section in cases you're discussing should be to the article for the neighborhood or town in question, not to specific hotel listings. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, from the airport's Sleep section to the Sleep sections of the articles for towns, districts etc. easily accessible from the airport Ypsilon (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Right, that's the best way to do it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)