Talk:International airport

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to not merge. See also discussion at Customs airport Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 00:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

---

Merger? (from airport of entry)

{{mergefrom|airport of entry}}

Was wondering whether Airport of entry should be merged with and redirected here, because much of the information there appears to be duplicated in this article (and the basic definitions for both are similar). Thoughts? KeithH 08:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"International airport" has become more of a marketing term than anything else -- similar to the way a lot of Junior colleges renamed themselves Universities. Therefore, I don't believe the merger is warranted. Ewlyahoocom 03:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Given the size of airport and that this isn't a stub, I think they should be separate rather than a subheading in the airport article. Airport of entry is more a list of those airports, which the terminology section notes may or may not be branded international airports. The definitions are similar, but they are distinct terms, one more of a legal term, the other now more marketing or branding, as mentioned above. Toliar (talk) 15:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge from customs airport to international airport

Customs airport seems to deal with the same concept as international airport. It seems like they should be merged. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure if these criterion's are universal, however I present a few criteria for tagging an airport as International based on an answer given by the Minister of Civil Aviation for India. INTERNATIONAL STATUS TO AIRPORTS. Please also note reference to Customs Airports in (d) and (e). In brief, while a Customs Airport may have international flights, it needs to satisfy a few more conditions to be tagged as International (at least in India). I presume the requirements may be more or less the same in other countries.

(a) Declaration of an airport as an `International Airport` needs fulfillment of certain parameters which meet the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) stipulated by the Director General of Civil Aviation in India / International Civil Aviation Organization (Annex 9 Facilitation). These parameters are

(i) Runway length should be 9000 feet or more to cater to at least medium capacity long-range aircraft or equivalent type of aircraft, as these aircraft constitute majority of aircraft used in international operations,

(ii) Availability of Ground Lighting Facilities, Instrument Landing System, for operation of aircrafts at night,

(iii) International sector traffic potential,

(iv) Requirement/demand from Scheduled National/International Airline Operators,

(v)Availability of Customs, Immigration, Health, animal and plant quarantine services,

(vi) Bilateral agreement between the States (Nations) under which it may be offered as a point-of-call to foreign carriers for operations,

(vii) International Cargo Complex, and

(viii) Adequate size of terminal building to handle international and transit passengers. Based on the above parameters and approval of Union Cabinet an airport is declared international airport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramananrv123 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dubious

I have added a dubious tag. There is a statement that says smaller countries may have only international airports. While I'm not too sure, there are some countries with only domestic airfields and I know one which doesn't even have an airfield. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Vatican City claims to be a country. Good luck trying to land a 787 Dreamliner™ (batteries not included) there. K7L (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Images in the lead section

Okay, so can we have some opinions over what image must be used in the lead. I find the image of SFO too boring, and I think it should be replaced. What do you suggest? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I kind of like the one of San Francisco International Airport, but I do find it a bit dark. Another example photo would be a good alternative. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 07:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks more like Star Trek Enterprise than an airport actually. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, it is a featured picture. The caption could say something about the international terminal (see here), since that's what makes the airport operate as an international airport. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 17:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I love it. It looks so dramatic and it gives a sense of the scale of these things. It makes you look at it to see how such a structure works. It represents any number of international airports, and that would not be be case if it were a ground shot, which would make the airport look, dare I say it, pedestrian. Here we have an airport seen from the air and a Featured Picture too! Whiteghost.ink (talk) 01:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It should at least be repositioned some how. It's too wide, causing the lead text to be squashed. And immediately followed by a long narrow TOC. David Condrey (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Your solution has fixed it. Thanks. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I like it the way it is, the night gives the lights at the airport an cool outline. You could always try commons:Category:Airports and sort good pictures. File:Washington Dulles International Airport at Dusk.jpg was previous on the article but was removed for some reason, its also a FP! ///EuroCarGT 00:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Roosevelt Ref

The reference from http://www.museumsusa.org/museums/info/2375056 is dubious. How reliable is the museum publicity piece? What is being referred to as the first? SovalValtos (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I have found a conflicting claim in this source (Douglas Dispatch) that claims that the airport became the first international airport of the Americas in 1928, and was declared such by Eleanor Roosevelt (and not Franklin D. Roosevelt) on June 5, 1933 (and not 1943). The museumusa source, by the way, does not say what year was in question at all. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 09:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I've also added a dubious tag to the source (Paramount Business Jets) that I could dig up to support the claim on "limited international airports". This is really the only one I could find but I'm not happy about its quality as a reliable source. Please discuss. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 11:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Please note that there's also a large chunk of unreferenced information in the section Naming conventions marked as citation needed. This too should be dealt with if we want to get a good assessment. The Exceptions section also needs more sources. Both of these are tagged a tad ambiguously and it's not clear what claims exactly need sources (ie. what is "material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged", WP:V). It would greatly help if someone could say what exactly needs sources within those sections. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 11:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It might be useful to have references to some, at least, airports with the word International in their name that are not International as used by this page. It might be hard to find references to airports using International as a marketing tool. SovalValtos (talk) 12:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I've changed the museumusa refs to Douglas Dispatch and updated them with information from that source. I have removed the mention of "limited international airports" all together. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 22:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The intro pretty much infers that the "international airport" will be larger and have runways for heavier aircraft and more facilities. Sometimes true, but one runs into nonsense like Ogdensburg International Airport where the term is clearly being used for marketing purposes to make a tiny customs airport for general aviation on the border (with one intrastate Essential Air Service flight as its only scheduled service, average six passengers a day) appear to be a major international destination. I've left a one-line mention that the term is used for marketing purposes in a few small towns, without mentioning any names. K7L (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This theme is covered in the Naming conventions section which says: "A few [international airports], such as Gary/Chicago International Airport in Gary, Indiana, are in fact not international airports at all; they are not designated as airports of entry but aspire to become such in the future and added "international airport" to their names as a marketing tool." You could move it into that section. Please provide a source as well for your claim.

I make use of this opportunity to stress the importance of sources. The only reason this article was rated C (an assessment which I agree with), instead of say B, is because of two unsourced paragraphs. The biggest problem with TAFI is that we don't source the claims made in articles before we start adding content, and that when we add content we overlook the importance of sourcing. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 14:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Should the note "this article needs further attention" on the Aviation template be removed now? Whiteghost.ink (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I have removed it; I think it was there for the TAFI week. Thanks for the heads-up. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 11:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

There now seems to be no mention of "international in name only" after this series of edits removed nearly a quarter of the article. Should the removed text be moved to the talk page for discussion? K7L (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Lede

I have separated the lede into two new paragraphs. I think the first should stand, but the wording and refs in the second incorporated into the body of the article. In the future when the article is in good shape the lede could be expanded to reflect the article as it developed. SovalValtos (talk) 12:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The second para is a summary of what we have added during this current effort to improve the article. That is, I summarised it from material already included so it doesn't need to be incorporated but later might more might need to be done. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:International airport/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MrWooHoo (talk · contribs) 02:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and I'll be reviewing this excellent article! This will be awesome :) Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 02:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: I do my review in a style with a main review covering the GA criteria, a prose review, and then a source review. See this review for an example.

Hi Brandon, sorry for the delayed reply. Thanks for reviewing this article. I have gone through the notes written thus far, and you have notated to see prose/source sections, but those sections are empty. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. Perhaps your still preparing your notes. Please note, it may take me a couple of days to see and respond to your comments as I've had some personal matters (new job, etc..) come up recently which are taking most of my attention and thus limiting my time on Wikipedia. David Condrey ^{log talk} 05:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Main Review

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Looks good from a first glance. Please see prose review for more in-depth changes.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	MOS guidelines are followed. Good lengthy (but not too long) lead.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Please see source review for more info. All issues fixed.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Please see source review for more info. All issues fixed.
	2c. it contains no original research.	All information is cited in the article.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article covers everything it should.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	It doesn't veer off topic at any point in the article/go into too much detail.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Everything is balanced in the article, in terms of neutrality.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars/arguments that I've seen.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Pictures's copyright statuses are all good.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Captions look great.
	7. Overall assessment.	Great job fixing the issues I stated. Pass. --Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 03:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Prose Review

Note: If you have changed the sentence that needed to be corrected, press Enter and start off the line with ::, then use Y or  Done If the change was only partially done use Y, and N or  Not done if the change could not occur. (If you would explain why, I would be greatly appreciated :P) To see code, go to edit source and copy the code.

• Lead

"Buildings, operations and management have become increasingly sophisticated since the mid 20th century."

Add a comma after sophisticated.

Y Not sure I would tend to say it's better grammatically without the comma but could go either way. David Condrey ^{log talk} 10:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

(Extra Note) Is referencing in the lead necessary? I read here that you didn't need to.

Y

• History

"Four-engined land planes being unavailable for over-water operations to international destinations, flying boats became part of the solution." "Maybe say "...international destinations, thus/therefore flying boats became part..."

Y Additional improvements of same section:improved refs, added wiki-links, removed red-links, and rewrote last paragraph. David Condrey ^{log talk} 07:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Design and Construction

No issues.

• Operations and Management

(Under standards subsection) "...airports organized themselves under Airport Operators Council, later Airports Council International..."

Maybe say "airports organized themselves under the Airport Operators Council, later the Airports Council International..." (Tell me if this sounds weird.)

Y Rewritten as "In January 1948, 19 representatives from various US commercial airports met for the first time in New York City to seek resolution to common problems they each faced, which initiated the formation of the Airport Operators Council, which later became Airports Council International – North America (ACI-NA). This group included representatives from Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Jacksonville, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Memphis, Miami, Minneapolis-St. Paul, New York-Newark, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, San Francisco and Washington." David Condrey ^{log talk} 10:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Airport names

"Toponyms are one of the commonest source..."

How about "Toponyms are one of the most common source..."

Y So as to utilize the original naming of the wikilinked article, I rewrote is as "Toponymy is one of the most common sources for the naming of airports"

• Notable airports

No issues.

Source Review

No issues, except for maybe ref 14. Are "Subscribe to read the full story..." references ok? EuroCarGT fixed it here Didn't know that there was a |subscribe=yes parameter. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 14:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140603170609/http://www.flychicago.com/OHare/EN/AtAirport/Facilities/TravelerServices/Pages/Traveler-Services.aspx to http://www.flychicago.com/OHare/EN/AtAirport/Facilities/TravelerServices/Pages/Traveler-Services.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140921174031/http://www.worldairportawards.com/index.htm to http://www.worldairportawards.com/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria because of uncited prose, including almost the entire "Airport names" section. There are also citation needed tags that have been in the article since January 2020. Is anyone interested in addressing these concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

International airport

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Per silent consensus, this article has gone without any improvement, so due to this, I am closing the reassessment as delist. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

This article has uncited prose, including almost the entire "Airport names" section. There are also citation needed tags in the article since January 2020. Z1720 (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720 It seems that the article has gone for more than 7 days without any improvement and there is no consensus; am I free to close it? NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

If you agree with the assessment to close, you are free to close, as the consensus seems to be that no one is interested in fixing up this article. Z1720 (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I guess I will close this as per the silent consensus rule on the GAR page. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.