Wikivoyage talk:Airport article status

Usable

As of now, for an airport article to be usable it would need "at least a Ground transportation section and one Eat and Sleep listing each with contact information. There is at least a basic list of terminals and some airline information.". I'm not entirely convinced that Sleep is such an important section for an airport article, I'd say Get around, Buy and Connect are more relevant for most passengers using an airport - and after all this is for getting the article to usable status, not to guide. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Attractions

What are the "attractions" mentioned in the star section? What would that be in e.g. Frankfurt airport?Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems unfair, because the 'star' rating is for the article, not the airport being written about!

Frankfurt doesn't have any attractions (as far as I know). w:Kuala_Lumpur_International_Airport has a 'Jungle board walk' (a mini-rain forest) in the middle which is nice. Singapore Changi Airport has a rooftop swimming pool. Incheon International Airport and Shanghai Pudong International Airport have cultural centers.

I actually have a hard time thinking of a Western airport with any attractions. London Heathrow Airport (for example) is packed full of shopping opportunities, but nothing I would describe as an attraction. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

San Francisco International Airport has some great art on display. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The word "preferably" allows for some useful wiggle room. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Should airport articles require eat listings for usable status?

Swept in from the pub

I have been to my fair share of airports and generally the availability of overpriced chain food is the default assumption, hence it is not as essential for navigating the airport for there to be a dedicated listing as it is for cities (Does Traben Trarbach have good restaurants? Well, the WV site should say so if it does!). I think other things are more important for airports. And as airport articles do not list hotels outside of the immediate airport property, sleep listings can also be problematic, as some airports do not have any accommodation on their own grounds. So maybe the focus on eat sleep x which makes sense for destination articles does not make as much sense for airports? Thoughts? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

In an airport a traveller is generally confined to a particular zone. It is useful to know what is available in each zone, even if this is not the detail of eat listings. I want to know if there is only a small cafe in international departures, particularly if there is more before security. In a city I am less bothered, as it is usually easy to eat in a neighbouring area if the choice of restaurants is poor. AlasdairW (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Airports normally don't get their own articles. An exception was only made for the largest ones, like Heathrow Airport, because they had town-like levels of complexity (restaurants, hotels, shops, connections to surface transport) that made them too big to simply include in the "By air" section of their primary host city. If the only food is a pair of vending machines, does the airport really need its own article? K7L (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Well I don't know, you tell me in the case of airports like London Stansted Airport, you could certainly argue either way, it certainly does not mention anything about eating stuff there. It also does not particularly strike me as "town like complexity". However, Benito Juárez International Airport also lacks eat listings, but it tells me that I can in fact eat stuff there.... And I think MEX is certainly an airport worth having an article on.... Do most of the things we usually put into listings actually make sense for airport eateries? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm rather pro airport articles. Mainly because there is a lot of useful traveler content that I don't want to see in the city article itself. Additionally an airport such as Heathrow or JFK will service travelers who are not visiting London or New York. London Stansted Airport is useful because it is actually a large airport and nowhere near London. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not arguing against airport articles, I am arguing for tweaks to their status ratings. As airports have places to eat generic overpriced fastfood as per the default I don't know whether eat listings should be given undue weight... Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

For airports, I think it would suffice to have some general text mentioning the eating options. The same would go for Sleep, at least in the cases where the closest hotel is several kms away. On the other hand, during an hour on an airport I think you're more likely to want to Buy something or Connect to the Internet than during an hour in a city, so perhaps it would be good to require something in these sections too/instead for an article to be usable. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ That's probably a good direction to start. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Should be fine. What I want to know about an airport is whether I can spend some hours relaxing there (cinemas, restaurants, etc) or should I avoid it for as long as possible and stay in the city? Andrewssi2 (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

So... Are we getting any closer to actually changing anything? I have yet to hear a voice dissenting from the "something needs to be done" consensus... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I would plunge forward and propose a specific change to the criteria at Wikivoyage talk:Airport Expedition or Wikivoyage talk:Airport guide status. Powers ^(talk) 23:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)