Talk:Frankfurt Airport

This page is for discussing the corresponding article or guide. For more about using talk pages check out Project:Using talk pages.

Comments

Swept in from the travellers pub

redundant page

I noticed the Frankfurt Airport page is empty and only has three references. The links from the refering pages can be removed without loosing any information. Should the page be removed? The relevant information is already in the Get In section of the appropriate pages as done for the Haneda Airport redirect. -- (WT-en) hscholz 22:57, 1 February 2008 (BRST)

Airports exist in a bit of gray zone: we've got individual articles for a few biggies (Heathrow Airport, Kansai International Airport), but most don't. Frankfurt is certainly big enough to qualify in theory, but if there's no content, I say just redirect it back to Frankfurt for time being. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:44, 3 February 2008 (EST)

Feedback on aiport template edits

One comment regarding the recent changes - I think that ONLY hotels located on the airport property should be listed in this article. We go to great lengths to discourage companies from spamming us with listings and have been steadfast in the one listing only rule, so I don't want to see airports become an exception. If a hotel isn't on the airport property then simply state something like "[[Town X]] and [[Town Y]] are a short taxi ride from the airport and offer many additional (and quieter) hotel options." -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it is valuable to the traveller to know what airport are near the airport, particularly those with shuttle buses to and from the airport. Clicking though many pages would be a long job and you no-longer have a printable list. In this case of the hotels here new pages would have to be created for the outlining towns. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I suspect you'll get a lot of pushback on listing the hotel in both articles, rather than just mentioning town/district in the airport listing, as it would be an exception to Wikivoyage:Don't tout. For a similar example, see Yosemite#Sleep - the listed towns are essentially just tiny portals with services for park visitors, but following the "one listing only" rule the individual establishments don't get a second listing in the Yosemite article; instead we note that they have accessible lodging suitable for park visitors, and the reader can then review those articles for more information. If we open up airport articles to any hotel that claims to be near the airport, or that has a hotel shuttle, I suspect that the utility of the airport hotel section will diminish quickly. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

On the face of it, I agree. We don't want businesses to be able to list themselves twice. It's spammy and touty in its effect, even if it's by someone with pure intentions like you (Traveler100). Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

If it's instructive, O'Hare International Airport does list hotels, but those are not included in other articles. --Peter ^Talk 05:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The new format looks good, trying out on the Frankfurt Airport article. Have just added a little information on parking as text but wondering if this would be better as a number of listings, particularly if start adding long-stay possibilities. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

wifi info outdated

as of September 2014 there is another system of "free" wifi in place if I recall correctly you get 24 hours for free offering a (throwaway) email-address (they don't check whether it actually exists, so you could use justin-vented@fake.com). However I don't know the exact detailsHobbitschuster (talk) 18:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

As this is now dealt with in the article should it be moved to an archive or something like that?Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

No need to archive yet. Anyone seeing this discussion will understand. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

I noticed that there are a bunch of small places around the airport that are mostly of interest to our readers insofar as they contain hotels in reasonable proximity to the airport itself. Now how about we list them in some omnibus article like "villages surrounding Frankfurt airport" with the sleep (and maybe the eat) section divided by the individual villages. That way we get less empty articles and on relatively convenient way for people to look up all the options. What do y'all think? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Would loose the destination tags on maps which are useful when looking for places in a particular area. Although the locations are mainly to do with the airport, there are other reason for travelers being in the area. Particularly business travellers visiting companies such as Opel, Hyundai, Deutsche Flugsicherung, Tetrapak, Industriepark Höchst, ... I think more productive would be adding more information to the pages. This is a high population and economic area, lack of information is not a reason to remove pages. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Does anybody actually use said destination tags? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Well I do, all the time. Region articles for areas you do not know can be difficult to see what is close to where, cannot rely on the go next. Or for planning a route and seeing what place are just of the highway. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Kind of your judgement call. Personally I'm usually keen to get away from an airport ASAP, but if there are truly useful places to visit close by then by all means include. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The proposal is not about adding more information but deleting article with low listing counts. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Andrewssi2 there might have been a misunderstanding. What I am proposing is to combine the articles on places like Kelsterbach into some place other than this airport article (which consensus is against) because they contain nothing more than their hotel. At lest that is the case for most people who go there... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

(starting at the left again)It's not so much about deleting articles as about merging the hotels into one convenient easily to access article as any individual character these villages may have ever had does not exist any more and there main (only) draw are indeed their "airport" hotels... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Addition: nota bene: Rüsselsheim is not of this category as the town itself does have one or two things other than hotels, as a look at de-WV shows... (and its number of inhabitants) Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

But when I stay at a hotel near an airport, usually because of early flight the next day, the next thing I want to know is where to get something to eat nearby. Therefore reason for article of small towns. Also as stated above, there are other reasons people travel to the area. Initially all hotels with airport shuttles were listed in the airport article but a number of people did not like that idea. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure which consensus you are referring to, but with respect to Kelsterbach I would say that the traveler is served better by combining those hotels into the airport article. Kelsterbach does not appear to be a destination in itself at present and should be merged. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

On some discussion elsewhere (it may have been the airport expedition) there was a consensus on not listing "nearby" hotels in airport articles. Though merging Kelsterbach (and some of the other places listed in the sleep section) into this here article would imho be the most elegant solution... Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if I saw that particular discussion, but not listing hotels near an airport is not serving the traveler well. I can understand not doing it for Sydney Airport (for example) since you are only 15 minutes away from the city center and therefore listing Sydney hotels is redundant in the article. Incheon International Airport however is an example far from Seoul, so local airports are of great interest. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the more recent discussion is, but have a look at Wikivoyage talk:Airport Expedition#Airport hotels, O'Hare, and policy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

To Guide and FTT?

What is missing to get this to "guide" status and nominated for FTT? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps an edit for the discussion of AirBerlin, which you rightly mentioned in the "Pub" recently as likely to be absorbed by others. Just a small improvement, but in keeping with your good work. Regards, Hennejohn (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the Air Berlin situation is too in-flux to say anything definitive. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The Understand section of Frankfurt Airport

Swept in from the pub

If you look at recent edits, it should be clear why I wish for a third voice to try and make the language succinct and well-flowing without introducing awkward wordings or errors. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I had a go.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, TT, that looks much better. I was trying sort out the long and rambling sentence on my phone, but didn't make things better. I have no idea why Hobbitschuster feels he has to raise everything as A Big Issue in the pub instead of dealing with it on the talk page like everybody else does, but I will repeat what I have told him dozens of times: I am always prepared to work with other editors to improve articles and resolve disagreements amicably. Ground Zero (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I have proposed an edit of the infobox for Schiphol Airport at Talk:Schiphol_Airport#New_infobox, and welcome comments. Ground Zero (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Infobox again

I've had another look at the infobox. It is just confusing. I've broken up or reorganized sentences that justs seem to go on and on. It mixes up the airports and airlines in a way that is too complex for an "infobox", and isn't necessary. The article is about FRA, not LH. I get that FRA and AMS are the home bases for LH and KL, but these sentences were being asked to do so much that they lost the plot. I'm not sure that we even need AMS in here. The comparison between FRA and IST makes the point. Ground Zero (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Oof, upon re-reading it I agree. It's very rambling, and includes a lot of explanation about IST and AMS that belong on those pages, not here. --Bigpeteb (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Copyedits and reverting

@Hobbitschuster:, my explanations for copyedits were provided in the comment line here and here and here. An unregistered user reverted my edits with no reason provided in the comment line or on the talk page here. In doing so, the unregistered user reinstated minor capitalization and formatting errors that I had fixed. I didn't need to explain restoring these edits to the unregistered user because I had already explained them in the comment lines.

You have now reverted these edits and restored the capitalization and formatting errors and provided no reason why the old version is better.

If you can explain why you think the old version is better, we can discuss the changes. It would really help if you'd be willing to discuss the substance of my edits. Rolling back without explanation is not constructive. Ground Zero (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Well I've made a stab at rewriting, because watching this back and forth is dizzying. I am also open to discuss, and will justify the changes I made if anyone asks.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed minor fixes

Here are some minor fixes to the article that I am going to propose. These should not be do troversial, but because of the history of this article, I am bringing them here for discussion first to see if there is any objection.

1. Telling readers to "plan accordingly" is WV:obvious.
2. "Keep that in mind if you are a late arrival or in need of a hotel room late in the evening." -- this is just filler. The useful advice has already been provided. Let's delete this fifty a livelier wv:tone.
3. The article uses both "traveler" and "traveller". We should pick either US or UK spelling. I'll look for advice from other editors on which to use for Germany articles.
4. The article uses both "terminal 1" to "Terminal 1". "Terminal 1" should be capitalized as it is a proper noun.
5. "Four nearby, a bit of a hike the other side of the Autobahn..." should have a main verb in it because sentences read better with main verbs. I propose to change this to "There are four more nearby, a bit of a hike the other side of the Autobahn...."
6. "Busses" is an odd spelling used only by some Americans. Merriam-Webster says that hardly anyone uses "busses" anymore.

Ground Zero (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

None of that seems remotely controversial. Please proceed. I know you're trying to avert a fight but the changes you suggest are so plainly acceptable IMO that it comes across as though you're spoiling for a fight. Just make the edits, and wait to see if anyone complains in the proper manner (or an improper manner).

(Incidentally I just realized I've been misreading the wv:spelling policy on "traveller" for years. I thought the preference for British "traveller" was universal, not that it only applied to project and talk pages while articles should use whichever is correct for the spelling they prefer.) --Bigpeteb (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bigpeteb: I am trying to do everything I can to avoid this causing any problem. As these edits were reverted (as part of a big rollback of edits I had made), I don't want appear to be trying to stir things up again. I am proceeding with excessive caution here precisely to avoid a fight. Ground Zero (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)