Open main menu

Wikitravel β

Talk:John F. Kennedy International Airport

For more about using talk pages check out Wikitravel:Using talk pages.


Why did you remove everything that I added in the process of adding the correct format and your own information??? Also, why don't you people make a cohesive decision on what you want to do with this article long term rather than butchering attempts to improve, refusing to delete it, and refusing to merge it or move the information to the article where supposedly all the information is really supposed to be?? This has been a very unpleasant experience so far as an editor of Wikitravel. QualityControl3533 00:47, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Check out the airport template used in the Los Angeles article, I think we could take a lot of the info here and create the same on the NYC page... that would be a good start on the cleanup here and will begin the merge process – cacahuate talk 02:04, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

vfd discussionEdit

John F. Kennedy International AirportEdit

  • Delete?. I don't know for sure that this should be deleted. Does it meet our criteria for an airport getting an article? It should be city-sized to do so, with sleep options within the airport, I believe. --Peter Talk 01:38, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
I'd be willing to waive the "sleep there" requirement for the largest, most complex airports, due to their importance to the traveler. LtPowers 08:23, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
Well, that's the thing—the largest, most complex airports (like Heathrow, Osaka, and O'Hare for example) all do have sleep options. --Peter Talk 13:00, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
But it's not just the sleeping options that make those articles useful to the traveler. LtPowers 16:46, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
The biggest International gateway to the United States should not be deleted from Wikitravel. That's a strange criteria that you have that says that the airport must have an onsite on hotel. Atlanta is the biggest aiport in the world for passengers, Memphis is for cargo, NYC-JFK is the biggest gaetway as already said, and LAX is the second largest gateway and it has no onsite hotel. That's a flawed criteria and these airports should not only be here but all airports should ultimately be here as is the case with Wikipedia. I am updating and significantly expanding the JFK article in preparation for it to remain on Wikitravel. QualityControl3533 02:10, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
Those are all reasons why they would qualify for articles on Wikipedia, but we have much different needs here. The question is whether there's much to say that actually serves a traveler and helps on their trip... information about which airlines fly into JFK and how to get to and from it should be covered in the New York City#Get in section, not in a separate article. Random encyclopedic info about JFK should be covered in the Wikipedia article, not on Wikitravel. Which leaves us with sleeping and eating options, and if there are no sleeping options, we don't exactly need an article about JFK that describes the variance between TGI Fridays in Terminal 1 and TGI Fridays in Terminal 2 – cacahuate talk 19:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
The section you linked largely discusses how to get into New York City from the airports, not how to get in to the airports themselves. Also, in addition to "Eat" and "Sleep", the sections for "Get around", "Stay safe", and "Buy" would be different for airport articles than for their surrounding cities. LtPowers 20:44, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
I haven't even looked at NYC's get in section, it may well need expanding and improving, but without a doubt that's the correct place for the info I mention. And for pretty much any airport you could cover all 3 of the other topics you mention in as many sentences or less, if there's even anything relevant to say at all... "Get around" doesn't need a ton of explaining and can easily fit within the city's get in section, "Stay safe" is irrelevant for most airports but could also be covered in the city article if there's something pertinent and for "Buy", see my TGI Friday's example above ;) – cacahuate talk 22:49, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
I dunno, it just seems really odd not to have an article on one of the largest airports in the United States. I agree it's not much as far as a destination goes, but surely it's a valid travel topic? LtPowers 10:09, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
I'm not so sure... it's only purpose in life is to act as a portal to NYC, and we can describe how to make use of that just fine in the NYC article... beyond that, all else that you would say about it is probably going to be more relevant to the Wikipedia article on JFK rather than the WT one. Would Rough Guide devote a separate guidebook to discussing JFK? Or even devote a chapter to it? I would guess that they would cover it in a paragraph or two in the NYC guide – cacahuate talk 00:18, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
Well, here's my mode of thinking. When I fly in to someplace new, if I'm going to be needing to find my way around an airport, I find it useful to know the general layout, where the borders between secured/unsecured areas are, where the food is (is there good food in the terminal wings or should I head out to the main concourse), what stores are available (duty free? not?), how big the place is, and any unusual or unique things to watch out for. That seems like useful information for a travel guide. If you think it can all go in the city article, so be it, but it makes more sense to me to have it in an article about the airport. LtPowers 12:08, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
It is often good info, I just think it should be covered quickly in the city article if it's of note, unless and until it's just too unwieldy – cacahuate talk 15:21, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Deletecacahuate talk 22:49, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete for reasons given by Cacahuate. WindHorse 23:20, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
So it isn't helpful to know what cities each airline flies to from the biggest airport in the biggest city in the United States in a "travel guide"??? Also, if you already had the initial information without which cities each airline flies to in the NYC article then why did you create an identical offshoot of the GetIn section to begin with? QualityControl3533 01:34, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
Well, the idea is that we should have information on which cities fly into JFK, but that we shouldn't separate that from the NYC article--spreading information across many pages usually makes finding it more difficult, and should only be done when there's just too much information to include in one article (that's why, for example, it's necessary to split city information for NYC across district pages). In my experience, when an airport isn't big enough for its own article (and to this date, we've only done airport articles for the very largest ones in the world, not just the largest within important cities) it can be helpful to wrap a bunch of airport information into a district article (that contains the airport), along with the usual district info. I did this with Chicago/Midway Area—perhaps that might be a useful way to handle JFK? I don't know, since I've only ever used Newark International for NYC. So I'm still abstaining from a vote for now ;) --Peter Talk 17:20, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
The only reason that this would qualify as an article is if there was too much valid and well written info in NYC#Get in and it was becoming unruly and gargantuan... that isn't the case... and if it someday becomes the case, then we can discuss at Talk:New York City and come up with a solution then, no? Let's solve the problem once it needs solving – cacahuate talk 00:18, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
Let's merge what we have then and continue the expansion that has already started here in the NYC article then instead of just deleting everything. How about let's stop saying what we know is the best move to make and make it! QualityControl3533 22:56, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
Merge with NYC ArticleQualityControl3533 22:59, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
Looks like a consensus is forming around a merge & delete redirect solution. Sounds good to me. --Peter Talk 00:58, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Merge and redirect would be better, wouldn't it? LtPowers 10:25, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Yes! --Peter Talk 18:37, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I'm not a regular here, but I say keep - a lot of people come through JFK but are not visiting NYC. JFK is a major hub for international flights. It would be useful to have information there about food, shops, etc. What about internet access? Also, even though there are no hotels right at the airport, what to do if you get stuck there? There are hotels right around the airport. The Ramada Plaza JFK International Airport is located onsite, and there are several others in the area, convenient to the airport. There is plenty to say here that would be far too detailed in the NYC article. It's the same way that an article about Heathrow Airport can be useful, and I wouldn't want to bother finding that all the same information within the London article. Aude 19:26, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
    • I agree, but it looks as though the consensus is that until we have that much information on JFK, then there's no need for a separate article. I can see the reasoning. LtPowers 19:31, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
      • I like Wikitravel, but wouldn't bother looking in the NYC article for information about JFK (if I was just passing through). I would keep looking elsewhere than Wikitravel. Since so many people just pass through, it makes sense to go ahead and keep the article and improve it. Aude 19:36, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
First, don't worry about being a regular or not, your opinion is always welcome ;) You're right—but that's why we should have the redirect to New York (city)#John F Kennedy International Airport. If you search for JFK airport, that should take you straight to the information in the get in section of NYC, where you should find what you are looking for. --Peter Talk 21:02, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Sorry, but there is nothing about food or hotels near JFK in the NYC article. Nor should that be the place to put it. Also, I would seriously forget about wikitravel and just look elsewhere. But if we keep the JFK article, then people can put information useful to people passing through the airport and not visiting NYC. And people might find wikitravel useful and not need to look elsewhere. Remember the traveller comes first. Aude 01:43, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
Merge with NYC article Why not have the BEST and MOST comprehensive travel guide that would satisfy anybody's travel needs when using this airport or visiting New York City? If I were going to NYC the first thing I would consider is what airline or transportation takes me to thet city from where I live. My edits to the article, which have now been restored and will be expanded if the article is merged, and incorporating that into the NYC article do just that. Aude is basically saying that we should keep the article solo, removing so much information that their edits had rendered it unfit to stand alone, and then going on to say that Wikitravel isn't really that important anyway so why bother. How does that help anything? QualityControl3533 00:57, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
I'm curious where it is you think you're going to go as an alternative to Wikitravel where you are expecting to find entire chapters devoted to airports and what to do in and around them... I've never come across such a guide – cacahuate talk 01:19, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
Merge and Redirect. That's where I come down. No one mentions the slippery slope of deciding where the line between large and small airports is drawn? That ought to be worth a couple million lines of off-namespace edits. 12:11, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
Hmm, I think I mentioned it. The same criterion for any article—can you sleep there. And I don't mean whether it's quiet enough to get a nap across 3-4 seats by the gate. --Peter Talk 21:51, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Undecided Sorry... I want to say Keep as I think large airports should have articles (has there been a policy discussion on this matter?) since some people can end up spending many hours in them either through having to arrive early for flights, or lengthy connections. However, having read the article in question, I'm not really sure there is any benefit to be gained from the article. Perhaps a Rewrite is what is needed. Sadly, having never used this airport I'm not really in a position to offer to do this. Nrms 09:48, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
  • We need to close the book on this one. I'd say the consensus is to keep it, although there's still division in the house. Again, starting a 24-hour clock here; if there are no new points being made, I'll archive it. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 16:11, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
I think the consensus it to keep the info, but merge it into NYC article... but we're back to the issue of that nobody actually puts in the work to do it before the vfd closes :) – cacahuate talk 18:34, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
Keep and come up with a policy regarding airports. First of all the article os of poor quality and is not comprehensive. However, if someone living near or knowledgeable about the airport took the time to clean it up, then it is something that should be kept, here's my thinking: First of all, there are a lot of airports with their own page on Wikitravel...just search "airport". JFK is a major airport for international flights, thus many people will spend time in the airport transferring between a domestic and international flight or vica versa. It deserves its own page not simply because lots of people use it, but because for many it is just a destination...with shopping, food, sleep, etcetera...look at the O'Hare International Airport article! Putting it into the NYC article wold be too cluttering because there are at least 2 large airports serving NYC and putting a large chunk of information into the NYC article wold further clutter it. If you merge it into a neighborhood article (Brooklyn?), it would be hard to find for people unacquainted with the city, and people would have to put things like food, sleep, etc into those sections in the neighborhood article, cluttering those and potentially causing confusion. So I think it should be left alone (and it would be great if someone would expand it). Additionally, there needs to be a policy about airports on this site. If you are going to be deleting airports due to their lack of importance...try starting with Comiso Airport or San Diego International Airport . AHeneen 00:06, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
We pretty much came to a consensus to merge the relevant info back into NYC, this is only still sitting here because nobody has taken the initiative to do it yet. I just had a look, and there's really not much worth keeping that isn't already in NYC article, so I've deleted it – cacahuate talk 03:35, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Outcome: deleted – cacahuate talk 03:39, 2 November 2008 (EST)


If we have articles for O'Hare International Airport and Heathrow Airport, why can't we have one for JFK airport? –sumone10154 14:37, 13 February 2011 (EST)

In the past the rule of thumb for airports is that a separate article is created only when the content about the airport in the parent article warrants splitting things out into its own article. The goal is to avoid writing an article about every single airport in the world while still allowing articles for massive airports that are deserving of their own articles. See Wikitravel:What is an article?#Exceptions, particularly the "good rule of thumb" note in the final paragraph of that section. -- Ryan • (talk) • 14:47, 13 February 2011 (EST)
I would consider JFK Airport to be massive. Can I just create an outline for it (with Eat and Sleep sections)? And London Heathrow was created that way (never split from another article) and was kept, so why not JFK? –sumone10154 20:28, 13 February 2011 (EST)
I'd suggest requesting comment (as you've done) and waiting a week to see if there are any objections. You can also put a pointer to this discussion in the Pub to request additional comment. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:20, 13 February 2011 (EST)

John F. Kennedy International AirportEdit

Moved here from the traveller's pubEdit

I've noticed that JFK airport was deleted in the past. I think it is large enough to deserve its own article so would it be ok if I created an outline (including eat and sleep sections) for it? Heathrow Airport was created this way and wasn't deleted. Discussion: Talk:John_F._Kennedy_International_Airport#Airports –sumone10154 22:08, 13 February 2011 (EST)

I'd like to hear what useful information you plan to add that isn't already contained (and can't be contained) at New York City#John F. Kennedy International Airport or Queens/Jamaica#Sleep. As was pointed out elsewhere, we shouldn't make a separate article unless the useful info is overwhelming the destination article. texugo 23:25, 13 February 2011 (EST)
I already said I would add eat and sleep sections (a restaurant in the post-security area of the airport should not be listed in Queens/Jamaica. And I'd move New_York_City#Shopping_in_airports there as well; it shouldn't belong in the shopping section for New York City and should go with the airport instead.–sumone10154 02:20, 14 February 2011 (EST)
I just want to know in what way is the status quo overwhelming the NYC article? Hotels can still go in the district article (there are not many there now), plus restaurant selections in the post-security area are usually not terribly unique or even recommendable-- how do you respond to Cacahuate's comment that "we don't exactly need an article about JFK that describes the variance between TGI Fridays in Terminal 1 and TGI Fridays in Terminal 2"? texugo 02:38, 14 February 2011 (EST)
It would still be useful for travellers to know what restaurants there will be in each terminal. And for several of the same reasons on Heathrow's vfd discussion. –sumone10154 14:55, 14 February 2011 (EST)
And it would be easier for travellers looking for information if we put all the information we already have on one page instead of having readers search for information in several different sections and pages (getting in at New_York_City#John_F._Kennedy_International_Airport, shopping at New_York_City#Buy, and hotels at Queens/Jamaica#Sleep.) –sumone10154 19:37, 15 February 2011 (EST)
I'm also a little sceptical regarding the usefulness of a separate article for the airport. If there really is that much more that should be written about the airport, I think it's best to try doing so in the New York City#By plane section first, to demonstrate the need. It's fine to put restaurant and shopping info in that section directly, although I'm not sure how necessary even that would be. Kansai Airport seems like a good exception to our usual rule of disallowing airports, since it is not only a major international port of entry, it also is far outside the major cities it serves. O'Hare and Heathrow are a good deal busier than JFK, but even those aren't terribly necessary. If we didn't already have a bang-up guide to O'Hare, I would might have argued against creating one for it—and it's the world's second busiest! The one airport article that I'd particularly find useful would be one for the confusing Charles de Gaulle, but even that has been taken care of really nicely at Paris#By plane. --Peter Talk 19:59, 15 February 2011 (EST)
In Wikitravel:What_is_an_article?#Exceptions, it says, Some examples of possible exceptions include: Huge airports the size of small cities such as Kansai International Airport or Heathrow Airport. Does JFK airport not count as huge? With 7 terminals and the busiest airport in the United States by international passenger traffic[1]? Do you just oppose creating any new airport articles, but want to keep the ones we already have? –sumone10154 13:25, 16 February 2011 (EST)
Return to "John F. Kennedy International Airport" page.