Talk:Harry Reid International Airport

2037 re-opening / rebuild opening

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtTAm6ciVmo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.97.57.97 (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Busiest international route

Does anyone know what the busiest international routes from Las Vegas is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:68BB:65F0:C9BB:75D4:AD82:4F4F (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Cargo terminals

Does anyone have some information for the Cargo section?Vegaswikian

Pictures

Does anyone have airport pictures we can use?

• Terminals
• Welcome sign at D Gates
• Murals at D Gates tram stop

Charter International Terminal?

OK, if this is a name also used for this terminal, why is it that so many people who work at the airport don't even know it? To almost everyone it is simply Terminal 2. That is how it is listed on just about every sign. It is infrequently called the international arrivals terminal or the international terminal. During construction it was sometimes listed as the Charter/International Terminal to indicate its purpose but not as a name for this. The Signature terminal is also probably better know as the charter terminal then terminal 2. So, it would be interesting to hear where that name is actually used.

Terminal 1 is frequently called the main terminal, but I don't think listing that as an alternate name is something that should be done. Vegaswikian 18:01, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to McCarran image copyvio?

I have started a discussion about the image's status on it's Talk page--N35w101 18:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

I dropped this tag since the effort was being described as slash and burn apparently the standard airport terminal list of airlines, gates and destinations were deemed as as unsightly. Personally I think changes like that should be discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports because that is the format used for all large airports. Vegaswikian 18:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on with this "slash and burn", but the airline listing is unusual as I see it for at least two reasons. First, there are sections about museums, art and such after the airline info. In every other airport article I've seen the airline section is at the end, in front only of various links. Second, It seems very ususual to list charter airline services. Most airport pages list only scheduled service. I definitely agree that the list itself should be kept, however. Rdore 18:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

If it belongs at the end, then it should have been moved there and not just deleted completly from the article. Besides the scheduled services, McCarren is a major hub for sightseeing flights. Those can not be ignored. One common way to address items that tend to increase the the size of an article or to complicate the layout is to create a new article to split out that information. Is that a better solution here? If so, what should be moved out, all airlines that will be moving to the new Sloan airport/heliport? All sightseeing operations. Vegaswikian 20:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

As I said, I definitely don't support deleting airline information. However it seems to be much more of a mess, than on most airport articles. And its formatting is a mess. I'm also curious why gate info is listed - it's not available on most airports airports (just checked SFO, LAX, ORD, JFK, ATL and didn't see it). It also seems hard to update and/or verify. And it clutters up the list, especially since most airlines don't seem to have continuous blocks of numbers. (I am in favor of maintianing by concourse info.) As far as charter information, I think it would be better to make a separate listing like there is with Anchorage. Any objections? Rdore 21:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The gate information was there when I arrived on wiki. So I don't know if there is any history behind it. If there are no objections I don't see a reason to keep it. Like you said, one less thing to keep updated. No problem converting to a series of heading for the different types of services. I would like to see what the Airports project has to say before making a major overhaul in that area. It would be nice to have a common guideline to use. Vegaswikian 22:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

With respect, I would object. I think gate information is useful and should be kept. Granted, some airports make this information obvious and readily available; others do not. Still, where available it's pertinent, albeit technical information, and appears at a variety of different airports besides this one, although such information does appar to be lacking from the big airports. Oh, and Hi, by the way, I'm Allstar86 and I've been creating and editing airport pages for a few weeks now. Allstar86 05:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Apologies - when I dropped the terminal list, I wasn't aware that this was a standard inclusion in airport articles - it just struck me as being a particularly long section disturbing the flow of an article which was already too long. With this included at the end, with reduced to information, I think it's a fairy reasonable article now. TheMadBaron 07:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• The terminal section would be fine without the long list of destinations, which I feel is more suited to the individual airlines and airport websites. People who wish to know the desitations of specific carriers can already find this information in other places. dok 09:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

This is standard information on every airport page. If you really feel it should be removed, I'd like to see some discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports, rather than just making the changes here. Rdore 16:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• OK. The problem with McCarran is that it has flights to a lot of destinations and with many airlines. That results in several airlines flying to the same location with small planes, the only widebodies I'm aware of are a few 747 on the overseas flights. McCarran does not want to be a hub and it's layout does not support hib operations very well. McCarran and LAX are the two main airports with this problem. McCarran also is a major sightseeing flight hub and it may be the only airport in the top 20 busiest with this type of traffic. Throw in unique traffic like multiple flights a day to Area 51 and it makes for a lot of interesting information. If someone is going to cleanup the article then rewriting the bad areas is more appropiate then deleting everything. If you want to cleanup something in this article give the transportation section a shot. It needs real work. Vegaswikian 19:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Busy airports

I rolled back the change made by an anon for several reasons. 1, the offical numbers are not out. McCarran could be 9th or 10th based on the numbers for Amsterdam Schiphol Airport. 2, changing the date makes it look like the cargo numbers are from 2005 and they are not. 3, the figure in the article at the time of the change was an estimate and not the offical number. I'll add the one from their website shortly. Vegaswikian 19:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I did a similar revert today. Does anyone have access to the final 2005 data yet? Vegaswikian 00:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Runway length

There is a mix between the length in feet and meters. The length in meters should be under feet and vice versa. Did someone knows how to fix it? Chagai 19:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

good point, ill fix it 72.83.117.107Nweinthal

SkyValue

I reverted the SkyValue change since it is cleanly in the wrong place. I had moved it to a better place in the terminal listing, but someone apparently decided that it did not belong. Likewise it has already been documented what the source, which was a concern, is so we don't need that to be included in the list. If someone wants this added back in, see where I had moved it and created a correctly formated (I belive) entry. Put it back there or in a better place, like if you know what terninal they will actually be using. Vegaswikian 18:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

US Airways' Secondary Hub???

LAS is NOT a secondary hub for US Airways. The airline's current route map considers LAS as a US Airways' hub. Bucs2004 04:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

WiFi Zone

The paragraph about WiFi under history read like a press release. Which it was, McCarran is not a WiFi Zone, first your equipment has to be WiFi Alliance certified (which it is) but the airport has to list with the WiFi Alliance which it has not [1]. I work at the airport, and know that none of the hallways have WiFi, or some do, it is very weak. Ben 21:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

To echo my comments on this - when I visited last year, I departed via the 'International Departures Terminal', and as of April 2006, there was *NO* wireless coverage in that building. 213.143.9.20 12:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

British Airways

British Airways does not fly to Las Vegas, they code share with American from Dallas.

• They use to code share with HP. So if you have not dropped them from the list I'll do that. Vegaswikian 22:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

CRF Access Control System

Unless a news agency talks about it, you may never know about unless you rent from one of those companies. It does exist.

• Which makes it OR and COI which means it can not be included. Vegaswikian 04:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Time to semiprotect this page?

We seems to be seeing a lot of vandalism and spam edits from anon and new accounts. Is it time to semi protect this page using the {{tl:pp-semi-vandalism}} template? Vegaswikian 19:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

AirTran Focus City

AirTran has a lot of future destinations from LAS. Could we call it a focus city?

• I suggest moving the discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Focus city definition since this needs to be better defined for all uses of this term. There have been edit wars in the past over the definition. Vegaswikian 00:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Incidents

I returned the incidents header introduced by anon IP. It seems well-written and referenced. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• That may be, but the airline and airport project both have established guidelines for these. Basically if there was not loss of life or airframe lost the incident is too minor to list. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification. Binksternet (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Out Of Date Picture

The picture under Terminals, airlines and destinations is out of date. It doesn't show Manila and it shows London Stansted as a destination. The service to London Stansted was operated by MAXjet who went bankrupt in December 2007. Can anyone list it for speedy deletion? 71.193.162.77 (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

St. Louis

Check a flight status on aa.com and you'll see American Airlines offers one nonstop flight per day utilizing a Boeing 757 to STL. I tried explaining it in the article's "history" section but I accidentally typed one stop instead of one flight.ZHoover123 06:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZHoover123 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for explaining, but are you talking about Flight 1578? I can't find any other direct or nonstop flight on the schedule. AA 1578 has a stop in DFW, an AA hub, thus making it ineligible for listing per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. If you mean that one, it needs to be removed. HkCaGu (talk) 08:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You know what, you're right...I double checked and it does stop in DFW. I'll remove it. ZHoover123 21:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Manchester (UK)

Please do not add Manchester (UK) as a destination for Virgin Atlantic Airways. They only offer nonstop service to London Gatwick. For reference, please visit: http://www.virgin-atlantic.com/en/us/whereintheworld/routemap/index.jsp ZHoover123 01:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you read this? Vegaswikian (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok but US Airways is going to serve Tokyo from Phoenix in 2012. It's too far in advanced, we don't need to add it quite yet. ZHoover123 05:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the guideline to list if the date is announced and meets WP:RS? We even have an exact date the service is to begin. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok well when does it actually begin? If it begins within the dates the airline allows you to book a flight on it then yes, post it. But if it's not able to be booked on the airline's reservation books, then no not yet. ZHoover123 17:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If the airline itself announced the route in their press release and the press release states that flights begin April 3, 2011 then I would list it. However, the year "2011" must be included since it is only "April 2010". Snoozlepet (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Snoozlepet is right. "2011" has to be in there with the start date. But what I'm trying to say is if that flight is unable to be booked because Virgin Atlantic Airways's reservation book hasn't been extended that far, don't post it yet. Wait until their reservation book allows you to make a reservation on the flight, then post it. ZHoover123 22:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I would at least wait till the Airline announces it themselves on their website as per the primary sources, which I am sure they will at some point. Whilst newspapers may be good secondary sources, they are not always accurate. Therefore I've removed it again. Sb617 (Talk) 12:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Sb517, that's what I've been trying to say. ZHoover123 13:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you...I just said that! Wait until the airline announces it. Snoozlepet (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well this includes the reported actual announcement by the airline. Other sources include Crain's, Opodo, Travel Agent Central which includes when ticket sales will begin and Virgin itself. So it is clear that these flights are planned and when the official start is and when ticket sales will begin. So exactly what facts are in dispute? Does anyone do research? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Had a look through the Virgin Atlantic websites, no press releases anywhere, the usual timetable providers such as Travelocity (for example) does not have the flights loaded in the GDS, nor can I book it yet. It's just like Delta saying Paris-CDG is a hub (according to their website), when in technical terms, CDG is not a Delta hub. Sb617 (Talk) 02:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It's appeared on the GDS now, so seems this dispute has since been dated. Sb617 (Talk) 06:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

And it is also announced by Virgin Atlantic itself here: http://www.virgin-atlantic.com/en/gb/allaboutus/pressoffice/pressreleases/news/vegas.jsp. Snoozlepet (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

AirTran - Indianapolis

Can someone tell me. Does AirTran's service to Indianapolis end on April 11, 2010 or 2011? According to their route map: [2], it is still in operation, but I'm not quite sure. ZHoover123 21:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it ended yesterday, as no more TRS flight plans have been filed since then as displayed on FlightAware. HkCaGu (talk) 03:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Links to old airline schedules-- wrong for Wikipedia?

I added links to lists of old airline schedules at LAS

(Airline schedules in 1956 and 1962).

Somebody removed them. Think they belong here? Tim Zukas (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If there is to be a section on the history of the airport, a few lists of who scheduled flights to where on a random sample of dates seems like a useful addition to that history. Tim Zukas (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Former routes and destinations had been deemed unencyclopedic for airport articles. If you want to write about history, write it in prose (not table or template), fuse it with other contents, and cite your sources as references, not external links. HkCaGu (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Present routes (routes current at the time of writing) have been deemed encyclopedic? Tim Zukas (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. HkCaGu (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hawaiian Airlines and T3

Does anyone know for sure when Hawaiian Airlines is moving from T2. I have seen it in print that T2 will close when T3 opens. If so, Hawaiian Airlines needs to be moved in June. I'm pretty sure that the TSA will not be keeping the checkpoint open for one airline, but you never know. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Terminal 3

The FAA Airport Diagram doesn't show Terminal 3. This is a scattershot article that essentially gives no practical information since the opening of Terminal 3 in June 2012. Dangnad (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on McCarran International Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060616145856/http://gamblingmagazine.com:80/articles/06/06-13.htm to http://gamblingmagazine.com/articles/06/06-13.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Eurowings

Why do you guys keep removing eurowings from the Las Vegas airport? I never heard of them cancelling flights, just delayed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:68BB:65F0:29F4:7B01:611D:7D19 (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

According to this link, the flight has been indefinitely postponed. We can't relist it until a set start date is announced again. - ✈Sunnya343✈ (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Controller Incapacitated Incident 07 Nov 2018

Does anybody think the Accidents and incidents section should include the 07 Nov 2018 incident in which the midnight shift female controller became incapacitated resulting in slurred and erroneous instructions to multiple aircraft on the ground and on approach? YouTube LiveATC and KNTV article (and much more available) Titaniumlegs (talk) 06:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

McCarran Intl Airport (LAS) Passenger traffic for 2019; referencing

Hello and good day. Can someone reference (source) the 2019 data I entered in Statistics:Passenger traffic for 2019. Obtained data from LAS website. Greatly appreciated. Have a good day.2601:581:8000:BDC0:CC36:DAE5:9827:50B6 (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Official FAA Name Change / Article Name Change

As of the 17th of June the FAA will have officially changed the name of the airport to Harry Reid International. This article needs to be updated to reflect this, I am not comfortable doing so as this is a new account. Las Vegas Sun and Official FAA Charts Wolfinmen42 (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I've updated the article to note that the FAA has made changes to their aviation charts to reflect the new name. However, the FAA itself doesn't control renaming the airport. According to the reference I've added to the paragraph, the Clark County Commission is expected to do the official renaming by the end of the summer. The name of the article should be left as McCarran International Airport until then. JRHorse (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Name Change talking points

Earlier this week I moved the article to Harry Reid International Airport. I made other changes to reflect the name change. Thanks to the other users who helped. That is very much appreciated. I go through this airport a lot so I figured I could help. At the top of the article I moved some things around and I do have the former names mentioned. I feel that for now its perfectly reasonable having those former names mentioned within the first few paragraphs as many people have not gotten used to the name change yet. That of course takes time. I feel that perhaps after a year, the McCarran name can be moved further into the actually history section of the article. At some point everyone will be used to the name change. Prior to the name change there was also a logo which was included in the info-box for the airport. I imagine a new logo will be available soon that can be included. Anyway these are the talking points I wanted to mention. Have a pleasant weekend. --IndustryPlantCooper (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Potential Edit Warring Over Airport's Namesake?

Some time ago, IndustryPlantCooper had been retroactively reverting all mentions of this airport's previous namesake to its current namesake on parts of this article pertaining to events taking place before last December's name change. This would constitute an anachromism. It is based on the fact that this airport's previous namesake was a racist and an anti-Semite. Wouldn't IndustryPlantCooper changing those historical references back to the current namesake go against the NPoV policy, too? I have been using the terms "then-McCarran" or "now-Harry Reid" to avoid edit wars when a better solution to a problem like this couldn't be found. Jim856796 (talk) 05:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Potential section about popular culture?

In Fallout: New Vegas McCarran airport is a major military base for one of the game's factions. Should a section with popular culture mentions be added listing this fact? Sealboyer (talk) 10:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Stop Removing the Airlines and Destinations List

There is no consensus to remove this list and replace it with an Operations section and has been disruptive to this page. Giving a reason for your edits does not justify removing the list of Airlines and Destinations. Jakemhurst (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning this. Came to the page yesterday and was so thrown off but not very savvy with editing pages and didn't want to make it worse. Not sure why that person keeps wanting to change a section that is literally in every airport Wiki page. Ericm2031 (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Ericm2031: I originally commented on Jake's talk page, but I will move my comment here:

Hi Jake, in one of my previous edit summaries I wrote, "Removed the tables per the consensus here. There is a lack of independent, secondary sources supporting the lists, and they go against WP:NOTDB and WP:NOTNEWS. I included a summary of the airport's air service instead." Sunnya343 (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

You really need to stop being a Karen and leave the section how it is. I live in Las Vegas and use this page to see which airlines fly where. To say it's against kind of code or whatever you said is just stupid. Every airport every has this section but you just have to be a Karen and ruin everything. Rsimasek (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I also previously discussed my edit with VenFlyer98 here. Sunnya343 (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Also not only do you not have a good reason to remove it other than being a power hungry asshole, but you are literally impafting my life choices. I never would have known JSX flies to Scottsdale if that tab wasn't updated and I have more options to visit my family. There is literally no harm in how it was just like how every page has that same category. Log off already, lady. Rsimasek (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Please knock off the abuse, @Rsimasek. You don't have to make this personal.

Wikipedia's got rules and processes about content. See "What Wikipedia is Not" -- a number of people elsewhere in a big community discussion decided this destination information doesn't belong in any of our airport articles.

Right now, Sunnya343 is just following the rules. Some of us want to change those rules but until that happens, destinations don't go in this article.

Another rule is we have to be civil to each other. Nobody wants abusive people around - they get blocked. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Bullshit, if Wikipedia had rules against listing a destination then none of the airports would list them. She has a personal issue with the Las Vegas airport apparently. I want you to justify why Las Vegas only is not allowed to list destinations but the other thousands of airports are allowed to. This literally impacts me from knowing updates and it pisses me off that Karens run this site. Lastly, I could not care any less if you report me, I only made this account to voice my frustration. Now please tell me why Las Vegas only is not allowed to list destinations but everyone else can. Rsimasek (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the plan is to now start removing from all airport articles which bothers me a lot. I use these tables for the same reason.

Rsimasek, Las Vegas just happens to be first. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

For ease of reference, I will also explain here why I believe the table goes against the consensus from that Request for Comment (RFC). Every reference in the table is a primary source: a timetable, WP:PRIMARYNEWS, or a press release. Secondary sources are unavailable for most of the routes, like the ordinary flights from Las Vegas to hub cities. That means we're giving them undue weight. The consensus also mentions how tables without independent secondary sourcing go against certain parts of WP:NOT. We're not supposed to maintain a database of the airport's current destinations or function as a news service that keeps track of every change to the list. Now, I definitely believe we should talk about the airport's current operations in the article. That's why I replaced the table with a summary of key details, like which airlines are based at the airport and what the top destinations are. Sunnya343 (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Your summary sucks and is completely useless, which is very on-brand, actually 2603:6000:8A00:A3:D72:51B2:1CD4:D7E3 (talk) 08:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The table should be kept and the removal is inappropriate. Reywas92^Talk 21:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Same here it should be kept as well. Not trying to cause a conflict. RobH2488 (talk) 05:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

conflict is the only way to stop people like this from ruining everything 2603:6000:8A00:A3:D72:51B2:1CD4:D7E3 (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jakemhurst: I've asked twice that you please discuss this matter. I'm going to go ahead and make the change I've described above. If you revert without responding here, then I'm going to have to file a complaint against you at ANI for disruptive editing by reverting without discussing. Sunnya343 (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree the material should be kept. I see no consensus here for deleting it. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

You have repeatedly deleted the information that others have said should remain. You have brought it up here, it has been discussed, and the consensus seems to be to keep the page as-is. Please stop removing the Airlines and Destinations list or I (and I assume multiple others) will report you for vandalism. Removing it is counterproductive and inappropriate; it ultimately serves no purpose other than hiding useful information. Rlrcoasterdude21 (talk) 06:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

In reality, no actual discussion is taking place here. It's not enough to say that you think the table should remain; you have to explain why. I cited the consensus from a Request for Comment and said why I believe my removal of the table abides by that consensus. No one so far has addressed my argument. To avoid further back-and-forth reverting, I am going to request dispute resolution and invite everyone here to take part. Sunnya343 (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

If you take issue with every reference in the table being primary, please feel free to update the references to secondary sources. However, the Airlines and Destinations list is on every commercial airport's page on this site and many people use Wikipedia to understand the airlines and destinations served by a certain airport in an easy to understand fashion which is one of the only places on the internet where you can look up an airport and see all of the routes served. Primary sources being used does not warrant the entire section to be removed which almost every contributor for this page agrees with in this specific case. Thank you for your civility and understanding regarding this issue. Jakemhurst (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Jakemhurst, at this point, it's more useful to discuss this at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard § Harry Reid International Airport A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

how miserable do you have to be to start a one person crusade over what many find to be valuable resorce that every other airport page has? get a life, for the love of god 2603:6000:8A00:A3:D72:51B2:1CD4:D7E3 (talk) 07:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I have replaced the lists with a summary paragraph in accordance with Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 240 § Harry Reid International Airport. Sunnya343 (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

In accordance with that, I've added numerous sources showing there is significant and due coverage of routes to and from the airport. Reywas92^Talk 04:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

your summary could not possibly be any more worthless 2603:6000:8A00:A3:D72:51B2:1CD4:D7E3 (talk) 08:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Way to remove such a useful piece of information for such a non-issue and replacing it with a summary that's not nearly as useful. Seriously first the airline terminals, now the airlines and destinations. Are you guys going to remove the top airlines and destinations next? I swear Wikipedia is becoming less and less reliable. 2600:1700:12F0:97B0:AD0C:BC3F:13A6:CFAE (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Please put the destination table back. This page feels more like a report paper now. 2600:1700:12F0:97B0:AD0C:BC3F:13A6:CFAE (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

i think they should stay. Lucthedog2 (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Zackrules90, extensive discussion took place prior to my edit. Please review the latest discussion, which I linked to in my edit summary. Sunnya343 (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are the only person who thinks the destination table should be deleted so not sure why you are obsessed with removing it. You may want to check the definition of consensus before deleting it again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus Zackrules90 (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Zackrules90, consensus here may be to keep the table, but a recent RFC put severe restrictions on such tables. This was reinforced by a conversation at WP:ANI this week. This broader community consensus trumps local consensus under our rules.

I agree with you about the value of these tables but the way to get them back is to change the community consensus.

In the meantime, it's just spitting in the wind to restore them. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Returning to this discussion late, but let me just say thank god common sense has prevailed here. The RFC consensus to delete is a prime example of the pernicious pedantry that is the bane of Wikipedia. Obviously, pedantic wikieditors will always outnumber the hundreds of thousands of dispassionate end users who find these tables priceless, and yet Wikipedia allows this egregious undue influence to dictate the deletion of this invaluable resource that is unavailable literally anywhere else on the internet. Let me say this as clearly as possible: if there is a rule that says these tables must be deleted, that rule is broken and needs to be changed. This inability to see the forest for the trees will ruin Wikipedia. Armandtanzarian (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

this has to literally be of the stupidest issues and arguments that i have ever seen in my entire life. what on earth is your problem? 2603:6000:8A00:A3:D72:51B2:1CD4:D7E3 (talk) 07:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I also want to have the airlines and destinations table returned. What is the proper way to go about that? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, there's no reason for this to be removed. This user has some sort of ideological crusade against the Airlines and Destinations table and was previously involved in an edit war for the same thing on the Mehrabad International Airport article. The RFC he linked to has no consensus (which has already been mentioned). Why is one person acting in bad faith able to mess up this page when every single other airport page has the same thing? Janj757 (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Since it's a struggle just to find the RFC being referenced, here is the link: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 187#RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I personally think all airports should have the destination table. Lucthedog2 (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

should we report the person or no? Lucthedog2 (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Report whom for what?

A decision was made at the community level to get rid of these. That community decision overrides the consensus here. Those tables aren't supposed to be there.

I don't want to lose tables for all these airports; I use them all the time. When real life permits, I hope to put together an appeal -- it's got to be done very well since usually appeals fail. We can't rush off half-cocked or else we'll just permanently lose. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The talk page he sourced no longer exits though. Lucthedog2 (talk) 06:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

That conversation has been archived but it’s still around. There’ll be a small box on that page that says “archives”. Check the most recent 2 or 3 pages . —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 13:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that someone needs to do it though. Lucthedog2 (talk) 06:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

This article needs to include the old name of the airport in the infobox and first paragraph

I'm a random traveler that took way to long to figure out that the Harry Reid International Airport is the previously named McCarran International Airport.

There are several sources in the article to senator McCarran but I believe that on the first paragraph and in the infobox this information should be present.

There are several articles, websites and different sources all around still referring the airport to its old name and it is quite confusing to people that doesn't know about the change.

Trying to hide the old name because of some kind of cultural shame about the previous name is counterproductive. This needs to be present no matter what to prevent unnecessary ambiguity. Bronnergus (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Airline and Destination

Why is this the only airport page without this? This makes so sense. 68.117.131.84 (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

It’s the first of many (eventually all) airline articles to get the table removed. See the discussion above. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

That's ridiculous, and the consensus wasn't to completely remove them. Just put it back. SportingFlyer T·C 23:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't know the RfC for whatever reason - I think it's pretty dumb, but I also think the table as sourced was clearly consistent with the result of that RfC, so I boldly restored it. SportingFlyer T·C 23:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully it will be the last airport article to have the table removed, too (and/or the first to have it restored). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

As a looong time user of this site, the Airline/ Destinations section of any commercial airport article is easily the most intuitive, uncomplicated, and easy to understand listing of said info on the web. Packerfan386beer here 22:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Every couple years there's an argument to remove them that gets to the RfC phase and it's always a bit ridiculous to me. These are one of the most gnomed areas of the site - many of the maintainers won't be at RfCs - and removing them en masse will be basically impossible. WP:NOTGUIDE is the one which gets brought up the most, but that's really an extension of WP:PROMO - travel guides generally do not include airline destinations, and airline destinations are notable - each new destination pretty much gets an article somewhere. To me it's similar to a list of destinations from train stations, which no one has argued to remove as far as I'm aware. SportingFlyer T·C 00:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand the section above is quite long and the relevant discussion I linked to in my edit summary has been archived, so I will cite it again here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1145 § User:Reywas92. That discussion is long as well, so I would highlight Robert McClenon's comment. The key issue is the lack of secondary sources. Sunnya343 (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

There's no consensus to remove the section here, that's why several different editors have reverted your edits so far, you need to show why it's not compliant with the RfC close. You can't keep saying "per talk page" when you have been reverted by several editors now and have no consensus to remove the section with the sources. SportingFlyer T·C 01:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

You are referring to my second and third reversions on 6 January, where I left an edit summary of "Per talk page". It appears that you have not looked at my first reversion on that day, which I linked to above and has this edit summary: Per this discussion + merged stats into the section (the discussion has since been archived, so I provided the link to the archive above). I don't think you read that discussion at ANI. You will see there that this same conflict has already happened and was addressed. Sunnya343 (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I read the ANI discussion and I don't think there's any reason why that table with that level of sourcing shouldn't be in the article. SportingFlyer T·C 04:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

FAA diagram

@Reywas92: The article is not supposed to be an Aeronautical Information Publication. If they wish, readers can click the external link at the bottom of the page to see the airport's latest FAA diagram, for which a specific template was created. There is no need to provide a link to and display a copy of this technical diagram in the article. Sunnya343 (talk) 07:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what The article is not supposed to be an Aeronautical Information Publication. is supposed to mean. This is a single map that depicts both the terminal with labeled concourses and the runways. An Aeronautical Information Publication is a manual of regulations and procedures. Including one diagram does not turn the article into any of these; nothing else in the article shows the layout and it's okay to have one thing a little more technical – or do you have an alternative map? Most of these US airport articles have had these maps for at least several years. The fact that there is an external link does not necessarily mean it should not be in the article. Or I suppose we could just delete 90% of the article and turn it into a bibliography. Reywas92^Talk 01:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not other articles have such diagrams is irrelevant. Every country in the world publishes this type of map in its Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP). Here are the ones for Valledupar, Colombia, and Toranagallu, India. So I could download all of them, upload them to Wikimedia Commons, and add them to every airport article on Wikipedia. Or I could not, because it would be pointless.

We need to make a distinction between summarizing information found in sources like an airport's diagram, such as the number of runways and their dimensions – and simply pasting a copy of the diagram in the article.

By the way, here is an example of an AIP. The airport diagram is included at the bottom (VOJV-ADC.pdf). Sunnya343 (talk) 05:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Alfonso López Pumarejo Airport and Jindal Vijayanagar Airport are devoid of diagrams, maps beyond coordinates, or even links to such, so YES, that it could be good to include those nice maps or at least something of the sort, not pointless! I see other diagrams at Hangzhou Xiaoshan International Airport, Charles_de_Gaulle_Airport#Terminals, Frankfurt_Airport#Future_expansions, Narita_International_Airport#Expansion_and_increased_capacity, Rome Fiumicino Airport, and Hong_Kong_International_Airport#Composition, for example. For US airports we already have diagrams that also include information for pilots and there's not a problem with that! Just because we use information from an AIP does not mean we are the AIP, nor is there a prohibition on including it especially to this limited extent. I see no basis to remove it unless you have a good replacement; I wouldn't oppose a simpler diagram or map. Reywas92^Talk 15:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The bigger question here is, what is the need for Wikipedia to duplicate something found elsewhere on the web? If a reader wants to see the layout of the terminals, there is a place for that – the airport's website. If they want to see more details, such as the location of taxiways and holding pads, there is also a place for that – the airport diagram in the AIP. And we have already provided links to both websites at the bottom of the article. By all means, use such sources to talk about the number of terminals, etc. But duplicating the diagram in the article is totally redundant. Sunnya343 (talk) 19:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Huh??? The whole point of this entire project with its sourcing requirements is to incorporate things from elsewhere. Why include any images if folks can just click on the link to Commons? Why say what the runways are at all if we can link to the FAA source? Why discuss ground transport if we can link to the airport's respective page? Why include a history section if we can tell people to go read a book? Should we delete the map at Yellowstone_National_Park#Geography because we can likewise link to the original source it duplicates? Our job is to bring things together to be broadly informative so people don't have to hunt things down in each of those places and so readers can have context like when the history section describes the development of terminals or what the facilities are, there's a map right there, rather than in an external link! I know in an encyclopedia we have to balance detail and accessibility and organization of what to include, but here we can absolutely include some sort of map diagram for illustration! Reywas92^Talk 23:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Pardon the delay in my response. Our job is to bring things together to be broadly informative so people don't have to hunt things down in each of those places – Exactly. We cite the airport's website to mention the types of ground transport available, though we do not note the specific taxi companies that serve the airport or the location of bus stops. We cite pages of a book to discuss the airport's history, but we do not copy all the details contained in that book. Similarly, we cite the FAA's diagram for the runways and their dimensions, but we do not discuss the number of holding pads or the ramp frequencies. These points might be what you were alluding to when you said I know in an encyclopedia we have to balance detail, but I wanted to clearly refute the notion that citing or providing a link to the diagram instead of duplicating it in the article is a slippery slope that leads to [deleting] 90% of the article and [turning] it into a bibliography.

I would add that the idea of tacking a diagram onto an article like Jindal Vijayanagar Airport, whose infobox spans most of the article's length, makes it even more clear that the diagrams are superfluous. Sunnya343 (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC) edited 18:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I haven't looked into it recently, but I believe different countries have different types of copyright for these sorts of diagrams, and we may not be able to use them universally. That being said, I have no idea how removing the diagram would improve the article. SportingFlyer T·C 18:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

There isn't one there because no one's gotten around to adding or expanding it, not because it's not relevant. It's good practice to include relevant images in the article because most readers aren't going to click through the external links and it's good to have it near the text. And a map is useful in different ways from interior photos! Maybe we should delete the external link then, since it's only a PDF of it, but I am aware of no prohibition on including content in the article that is also in an external link. And again, it could be one like those User:DerLudonaut made for a number of airports or those from OpenStreetMap, doesn't have to be the FAA diagram. I see commons actually has File:LAS airport diagram.svg that was adapted from it without the aviation details, would that be better? Since for some reason you're going to 3O, I'll note that User:Packerfan386 sent WP:THANKS for this comment, in case they or others have further thoughts. Reywas92^Talk 18:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

3O

I am responding here to a request for a third opinion. Sportingflyer has already provided a third voice, so mine is really at least a fourth. Earlier in the discussion, the question was asked: The bigger question here is, what is the need for Wikipedia to duplicate something found elsewhere on the web? Well, per WP:V everything we say or show needs to be available elsewhere, either on the web or in print. So the question we should be asking is not "is this information available elsewhere?" but "does it help make a better encyclopedia article?" MOS:PERTINENCE is a relevant guideline to help make decisions about image inclusion. It instructs us that images should serve a purpose to promote understanding of a subject, not just be decoration. The FAA diagram of the airport is an example of an image that helps promote understanding of the topic. This is likely why inclusion of these diagrams is so popular in articles about airports. Summing up: I don't see any great reasons given to exclude this image from the infobox, and I think it should be included. VQuakr (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I think File:LAS airport diagram.svg mentioned above would be an appropriate compromise. It cleanly depicts the runways and concourses without including excessive details like the names of taxiways or the different ATC frequencies. DerLudonaut's maps appeal to me more because I prefer their muted color scheme, but there is not currently one for this airport. Sunnya343 (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Reywas92: What do you think of this compromise? If you agree, do you want to change the diagram, or shall I? Sunnya343 (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I really don't think a change or a compromise is needed. SportingFlyer T·C 15:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with either one but don't actually think it needs to be changed. Reywas92^Talk 13:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I suppose we can retain the FAA diagram given that you two and VQuakr consider it acceptable. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

"Paradise Airport" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Paradise Airport has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 9 § Paradise Airport until a consensus is reached. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)