Transport v Transportation
[edit]
- Probably because it's the more common term in the US. I have absolutely no problem with the shortened version, though; it really doesn't matter to me and won't affect intelligibility in the slightest. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Do you think that "Ground transport" as a sub-heading would be intelligible to users of US English?
- If so, it would seem perverse to mandate the use of the border-line-cryptic M-W (rather than Mo-We) and then encourage a more verbose sub-heading form in a site-wide article template... -- Alice✉ 08:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I already said the change you suggest wouldn't affect intelligibility at all. Mo-We would confuse Americans, however, or at least looks weird to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting.
- Which is more intelligible to Americans, in your view, then: M-W or Mon-Wed ?
- Mon-Wed. But I don't think it's hard to figure out M-W, and both abbreviations are used often. Tu/Tue/Tues and Th/Thu/Thurs have to be distinguished beyond one letter, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I already said the change you suggest wouldn't affect intelligibility at all. Mo-We would confuse Americans, however, or at least looks weird to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Quite. Now, getting back to airport article templates, you for one - at least - wouldn't mind if I shortened this sub-heading? -- Alice✉ 10:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- That's right. I have no objection. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Personally (even as a user of British English) I prefer 'transportation' in this context as it seems to round out the phrase a little more, but I'm not hugely concerned either way. --Nick (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, as a user of Kiwi English, I definitely prefer things short and sweet. Short forms also seem more in keeping with our standard section headings. After all, we don't have "Accommodation" as an article section.
- Since a clear rationale for the shorter form has been proposed and, after half a year, the only other editors who have commentated have written that they're not hugely concerned either way, I'll make the requisite change. --118.93nzp (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Personally (even as a user of British English) I prefer 'transportation' in this context as it seems to round out the phrase a little more, but I'm not hugely concerned either way. --Nick (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Later: My edit was reverted by Ryan with the comment "if this is going to be changed we need to change all airport articles, so leave as-is (for now) until someone volunteers to do that - "
I do so volunteer.
Where can I see the list please, Ryan? --118.93nzp (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Category:Airport articles as well as all associated template pages would need to change. However, looking at the discussion above, declaring that there is consensus for change to something that was created after lengthy discussions when there are just two individuals in favor, one who doesn't care, and one who is moderately opposed, seems wrong. If enough people want to make this change I'm not opposed, but I don't see that the new heading offers any real benefit over the old one (we save five letters, potentially at the cost of some clarity) and would thus prefer to just leave it be. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- At the risk of trying to teach my grandmother to suck eggs, may I remind you that consensus is based on the argumentation advanced (and refuted)?
- Your idea that this abbreviation sacrifices some clarity just doesn't pass muster and has specifically been contradicted by all the other contributors here.
- However, I am now off to that other place you mentioned to take a gander... --118.93nzp (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Later: OK, I've read the whole of Wikivoyage_talk:Airport_Expedition now and, apart from a very tangential mention at Wikivoyage_talk:Airport_Expedition#Airport_template I can't see any discussion for or against the alternative names there at all, so unless you want to drum up some arguments in support of the US centric and overly long-winded naming, I'm going to go ahead with the change. --118.93nzp (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- I don't care greatly about this, but I'm going to withdraw my earlier approval of this change, based on Nick's comments above, for now, partly because I don't think you should precipitously change all these subtitles - and I think that's really the point. Leave well enough alone. I would have no problem with a consensus either way, but it's not worth changing things now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- I support Ikan's statement. There is no compelling reason to change this and cause disruption. Perhaps later when another significant change to the template comes along and it can be 'rolled in together'. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- I don't care greatly about this, but I'm going to withdraw my earlier approval of this change, based on Nick's comments above, for now, partly because I don't think you should precipitously change all these subtitles - and I think that's really the point. Leave well enough alone. I would have no problem with a consensus either way, but it's not worth changing things now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Later: OK, I've read the whole of Wikivoyage_talk:Airport_Expedition now and, apart from a very tangential mention at Wikivoyage_talk:Airport_Expedition#Airport_template I can't see any discussion for or against the alternative names there at all, so unless you want to drum up some arguments in support of the US centric and overly long-winded naming, I'm going to go ahead with the change. --118.93nzp (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Immigration
[edit]Would this be a good section to have for international airports?
After all, immigration/emigration entry/exit procedures can sometimes be lengthy and or complex and we might want to clarify whether there are unexpected departure taxes, etc. --118.93nzp (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- You'd expect considerable overlap between that information and the entry/departure information for the country as a whole, wouldn't you? Not to mention overlap between all of a countries airports --Inas (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Absolutely.
- However, our primary focus is the needs of the traveller - not avoiding duplicating information.
- Unless I've misunderstood things, one reason we are now developing separate airport articles is because it is more convenient for the traveller to have all the information collected in one place, eh?
- If we keep that gimlet-like concentration, then we do need an Immigration section but the only question is whether it should just have an il to the relevant information in the country article or whether we should avoid the need for the reader to hop between one article and another.
- If we still really and truly believe that the Print version matters, then I'd favour the second approach. --118.93nzp (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think we need to be careful about what WV will be used for. Immigration procedures change all the time, especially in places such as China and personally I would not trust WV to be up to date in this regard. All the relevant high level entry information is kept at Country article level anyhow. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
This may be another EngVar problem. I mean "immigration" not in the sense of permanent or semi-permanent re-location to a foreign country, but rather in the sense of entry clearance - the almost inevitable experience of landing card completion, customs (and perhaps biohazard quarantine inspection), photo-taking, passport stamping, visa on arrival issuing and endorsement that many international travellers have to endure... China is a good example of a country where these procedures may actually change greatly from airport to airport - it's only in some airports where you can visit the immediate area without a visa at all, for example. --118.93nzp (talk) 08:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Actually that was also the definition of immigration that I was thinking :) I used to watch 'border security' in Australia (OK, I regret that) and most of the program seemed to be around informing each visitor that they couldn't bring XYZ into the country. I would be OK with a clearly timestamped guide to customs rules for each airport, with the clear caveat that things may have changed since.
- Chinese airports and border posts are a fun topic. There is almost no official source of current rules and regulations available, and they do change rather frequently. I wouldn't want to put up any information that I couldn't at least trace back to an official source. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Breadcrumbs for airports
[edit]- Swept in from the pub
Is there a general rule where to breadcrumb an airport article to? Do municipal boundaries matter for that? Does districtification? Where to breadcrumb Denver Airport, Frankfurt Airport or Phoenix Airport? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- The region they are in. If it is an article then it at least serves the region around it, if not more. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Besides that, I would totally recommend directin g to the city it's in, for more info about traveling in and out. Just saying trhat would be helpful. Not required, just helpful. -Signed, the amazing Zanygenius. Wish me a happy 2nd anniversary of my first edit at my chat page 17:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)