Jump to content

Talk:Seattle–Tacoma International Airport/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Cargo Airlines

With Lufthansa Cargo starting SEA on September 10th, it got me thinking..... Many other airport pages list Cargo Airlines that fly in. I know of several, UPS, Fed-ex, Cargolux, some Asian carriers, etc. The information would not be to difficult to find. Now, destinations would be harder, but we could simply include a version that just states what airlines fly in. --76.121.4.143 (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The general practice is that only cargo-only flights are listed. And list only airlines. Routes and destinations are too fluid. HkCaGu (talk) 07:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well, according to the press releases from SEA website, Martinair, Lufthansa Cargo, and Cargolux fly to SEA, along with Fedex (I've seen them) and Im not 100% sure about UPS, because I've only seen them at BFI. Additionally, 4 cargo airlines fly from Asia.... Im guessing Korean Air Cargo, Great Wall Airlines?. I'm not sure who else. --76.121.4.143 (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Doing some further looking, these airlines serve SEA [for sure]: Lufthansa Cargo, Martinair, Cargolux, Fed-Ex, China Airlines Cargo, Great Wall Airlines. That meens there are two other airlines serving SEA from Asia. Is this good info to start the section? --76.121.4.143 (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, Korean Air Cargo flies to SEA, aswell.--76.121.4.143 (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

direct routes from SEA that require a plane change

more recent talk about this is at wp:airports so please lets continue there...66.220.124.56 (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

FL to MKE

Airtran flies to SEA year-round from MKE now. So whoever changed it back to all seasonal, look it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.140.72 (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

consensus reached on SEA-HKG routes

it's at wp:airports but here are just a few of the many quotes supporting removal of the NWA fancruft...from one user: "NW's shuffling habits warrant exclusion" and from another--- "UA and NW operations through NRT are timetable directs and therefore excluded" and one more--- "Northwest "direct" flights that stop at its hub in NRT, they need to removed"... so sorry but yes there is lots of consensus that via-NRT routes are not directs...go see for yourself more if don't believe me. In the meantime we need to stop wrecking the page for the sake of one editor who prefers less accurate info/marketing propaganda. I am going to be much harsher about monitoring this issue considering I keep seeing claims that consensus hasn't been reached even at wp:airports, when in fact the consensus could not be stronger either here (at SEA) or there (at airports). At the very least we should be tagging non-directs as such CLEARLY. 66.220.124.56 (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

HKG has been removed.....we need to do this for the other flights that go thru NRT as well too. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

new infobox pic

gives me a boner. love, bend oregon. 66.220.124.56 (talk) 06:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Re-Assessment

I think its time for the article to be re-assessed to something higher than a start class, so I'm going to post it for review on the WP: Aviation assesements page. --76.121.4.143 (talk) 03:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

DL SEA-PEK/SEA-KIX

Please do not remove these destinations as Delta will serve Beijing and Osaka nonstop as announced here http://news.delta.com/index.php?DB=mr4enh_delta&s=11 by Delta itself. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

New Format

Whoever changed the terminal formatting to the current format, it looks great! Love it! Nice job :) --ATController 13:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZHoover123 (talk • contribs)

Can we have a talk about this particular design? I rolled back the last attempt to change it to this "unofficial" format, because I honestly think it looks too busy and cluttered, and defeats the purpose slightly. Sure, having all the airlines in a single, organizable list is great and all, but I feel like it's a step backwards from the organized structure and look of the last design, and it leaves the information about each terminal (usually less than a sentence) in an weirdly awkward, poorly designed position at the top of the table. What do other people think? If others are vocal about leaving it as is, I'll try to get used to it, but I'd like to get other input on this... thanks! Wickedlyperfect18 (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
This is being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#Inconsistency_for_table_format_in_airport_articles for the table being merged into one rather than being seperate. You can add your thoughts to that page. For the terminal/concourse information, it needs a little more information about it. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I really dislike this new format. It makes little sense and is not helpful. Why do I care of all the airlines are ordered alphabetically? The airlines should be placed in their proper terminals.--76.121.4.143 (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I like the new format! I think it's more organized. And for giving background on each concourse, I think we could make a section titled: Concourses Overview or something along those lines and include the background information of each concourse all under one section. Thoughts? We are all here to discuss politely and give suggestions.--ATController 02:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZHoover123 (talk • contribs)

Northwest Airlines (6.4%)

At the top. It says Northwest Airlines (6.4%) in the top 5 airlines thing. I think you should change this to Delta + Northwest as they have merged —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gongs212 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It says "2009". Northwest was not merged into Delta until the very end of 2009. HkCaGu (talk) 05:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hyphen?

Is the airport name actually spelled with an emdash and not a hyphen? --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 18:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Delta using Concourse A???

I know that in the past, Delta used to operate some of its flights out of Concourse A because of overcrowding at the South Satelitte Terminal. Does DL still have flights that use Concourse A? Snoozlepet (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

ANA Boeing 787 service

I remember reading something not long ago that ANA planned to start service with their brand-new 787s to SEA. Can anyone confirm this? I'm not sure if they announced a firm date, but it should still be mentioned in this article. —Compdude123 17:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

ANA does plan to start operating the 787 to Seattle sometime during this fiscal year (April 2012 through March 2013).[1] However without a firm date and with such an uncertain timeframe for launch, I don't see why it's notable to mention the new route here yet. SempreVolando (talk) 06:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Okay that's what I thought. Yes, I know it doesn't belong in the table but it should still be mentioned as prose in this article. —Compdude123 15:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Mention it in prose somewhere in the article but don't include it in the table until a firm date is announced. There is already a hidden note saying so. Snoozlepet (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Is it notable though? Two airlines already fly from Seattle to Japan and it wouldn't be the first Asian carrier to serve the airport. SempreVolando (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
It will be the airport's first 787 service unless other carriers have applied to fly to Seattle with 787s. Snoozlepet (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that's notable - it's just a plane. What about the first 737 service to Seattle, or 757, or 777 etc..? None of those are mentioned, and notability is not temporary. ANA already fly the 787 to Frankfurt Airport, but there's no mention of it there. We can't add the details every time an airport starts getting a regular 787 service. SempreVolando (talk) 03:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Alright then. I was just curious as to when the 787s would be flying into Seattle, and so I could marvel at how dang quiet they are. But since there is no firm date currently, I will just have to wait until there is. —Compdude123 04:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ ANA 787 Seattle Route

Delta's Memphis Seasonal Service is No More

Please be advised Delta will cancel service to Memphis; not suspended for the season. Delta has been reducing the size of its Memphis hub ever since the Delta and Northwest merger. Shakbok (talk) 12:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved: insufficient support. DrKiernan (talk) 09:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


– An RfC at the Airports WikiProject failed to reach consensus on whether hyphens or en dashes should be used in the names of airports. There's been no activity on the RfC for over a week now, so I'm bringing it here for community attention. I set up this RM to change the dashes to hyphens simply because hyphens are more widely used here on Wikipedia. Depending on which style is accepted by consensus, the title of airports can be moved to standardize them. Relisted. BDD (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC) David1217 What I've done 23:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Am I missing something? I thought that MOS:ENDASH made this all rather clear. If it's a combining form, not independent; use a hyphen. If the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between, use an en dash.? Minneapolis–Saint Paul and Seattle-Tacoma would both be an endash as the dash is a replacements for "and". Just my interpretation.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. If the RFC failed to come to a consensus (and I agree it didn't, but more due to confusion than to actual well-structured discussion) then no changes should be made. Powers T 01:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry if I didn't set the RfC up too well (if you can do better, than please feel free to do so!) However, I think we should try to standardize the names of airports, even if we haven't found a consensus yet. David1217 What I've done 15:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I wasn't blaming you; I was referring to the comments, which looked haphazard and in many cases misinformed. Many of them failed to take into account facts previously established, and others made outright incorrect assertions. RFCs often go that way despite the best efforts of the organizers. Anyway, I don't see how we can standardize on a format that doesn't have consensus. Without consensus for a change, we have to stick with the status quo. (It helps that in this case, the dash is clearly correct, IMO.) Powers T 20:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: endash is correct here, in my opinion, and the RFC didn't come to any clear conclusion that would justify this change. Colonies Chris (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

How about we do this, Google Seattle Tacoma International Airport, find the official website and copy what they use. No standardization on wikipedia like David1217 is proposing because the airports choose what they use not us. Kairportflier (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's see... They use a hyphen, because it's hard to enter an en dash, and because most people don't know the difference. David1217 What I've done 22:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Hyphen. MOSDASH says: By default, follow the dominant convention that a hyphen is used in compounded proper names of single entities, not an en dash.

Tony, I've been trying to work out why you think MOSDASH recommends a hyphen here. The Guinea-Bissau example only applies if you consider that 'Tacoma' is a qualifier to 'Seattle'; in other words, you're saying the title means 'the airport for Seattle that's located in Tacoma', distinguishing it from 'another airport for Seattle located in some other town'. To my mind – and according to the intro to the article – it actually mean 'the airport which serves both Seattle and Tacoma'. And that puts the two parts of the name on an equal footing with each other, so it should be an endash. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONAME. Does our style override the actual name as used by the entity itself in cases like this? I think not. The issue is typographic for the MoS. Given that the airport chooses to not use the endash, why should we? This is not a case where the names are based on the desire to create a unique look for the name. This is simply a selection based on what people are likely to use. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Added Atlanta. Apteva (talk) 05:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, the FAA uses hyphen for all of these. See SEA[1], MSP[2], and ATL (Hartsfield - Jackson)[3] Apteva (talk) 06:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • FYI, Minneapolis–Saint Paul International Airport, uses a minus sign it the WP article title, not an en dash or a hyphen. Apteva (talk) 06:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:HYPHEN which says "Hyphenation also occurs in bird names, such as Great Black-backed Gull, and in proper names, such as Trois-Rivières, and Wilkes-Barre." Farther down it points out that "An en dash is not used for a hyphenated personal name." Airport names are clearly proper names. Apteva (talk) 11:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per Apteva. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, at least not until we have some better arguments. Another convention is the slash, as in Isle of Wight/Sandown Airport. Either convention distinguishes these names from airports named after hyphenated cities, such as the Sherburn-in-Elmet Airfield. This is exactly what you get with attributive personal names: a hyphen within a single name, but a dash to link two names. — kwami (talk) 23:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
    I'm finding four punctuations. Most common is the hyphen, presumably because it's easiest to type. Next is the en dash. Third is the slash, perhaps due to the common use of the slash for the cities of Minneapolis/Saint Paul. Occasionally there is no punctuation at all, as happens to hyphenated words as they become familiar.
    Attestations of Minneapolis–Saint Paul International Airport with a dash:
    Walking Home: The Life and Lessons of a City Builder (Ken Greenberg, 2012)
    Inside Game/Outside Game: Winning Strategies for Saving Urban America (David Rusk, 2001)
    Reinventing Environmental Regulation: Lessons from Project XL (Marcus, Geffen, & Sexton, 2002)
    The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Best Family Destinations (2011)
    The Change Maker: Preserving the Promise of America (Al Checchi, 2011)
    Collision Course: Ronald Reagan, the Air Traffic Controllers, and the Strike that Changed America (Joseph McCartin, 2011)
    Our Minnesota (Les, Craig, Nadine & Fran Blacklock, 1993)
    Hiking Minnesota (John Pukite, 1998)
    Attestations of Minneapolis/Saint Paul International Airport with a slash:
    Real Estate Market Valuation and Analysis (Joshua Kahr & Michael Thomsett, 2005)
    On Some Faraway Beach: The Life and Times of Brian Eno (David Sheppard, 2009)
    Avenged (Gerald Bosacker, 2006)
    Regional Government Innovations: A Handbook for Citizens and Public Officials (Roger L. Kemp, 2003)
    Outer Darkness (Bart Brevik, 2007) – a spaced slash, presumably due to the space in Saint Paul
    Attestations of Minneapolis Saint Paul International Airport with a space:
    Wake of the Green Storm: A Survivor's Tale (Marlin Bree, 2001)
    — kwami (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
    The name of the airport is Isle of Wight/Sandown.[4] It would be an odd convention to change the names of airports that use a slash to a hyphen or vice versa. It is not our job to create names for airports, but use those names. When they named the airport they decided to use a slash. Had they decided to use a hyphen, I would expect our article to also use a hyphen. And yes, if they had decided to use an en dash, I would recommend that we also use a hyphen. But of all the names of hundreds of airports I have seen, none have used an en dash. But I have finished with U.S. airports and will do the same review of other country airports. The few that I checked did all use a hyphen and not an en dash. There are some books that use an en dash for editorial style reasons, but they make the name of the airport look very strange. Apteva (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
In other words, your argument boils down to IDONTLIKEIT? — kwami (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
My argument is 1) Use English. 2) No original research. 3) Use common usage. If the name is Wight-Sandown, use Wight-Sandown. If it is Wight/Sandown, use that. There are no en dashes that I can find in any airport name. I can find ones with a space before and after the hyphen, such as Atlanta (ATL).[5] It has nothing to do whether I like it or not. Books are typeset, so being easy to type is not a factor. Apteva (talk) 05:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
You can add a fifth one: Cold War America, 1946 To 1990 By Ross Gregory[6] uses an em dash. Apteva (talk) 05:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't WP:COMMONNAME dictate "SeaTac Airport" as the preferred article name? VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 05:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
    Google Books: About 2,590 results for SeaTac Airport, 8,740 for Sea-Tac Airport, and 7,290 for Seattle-Tacoma Airport, most of which use a hyphen (three used a space, nine used a /, one an en dash, and 47 with a hyphen in the first six pages of search results). If a 47 to one ratio is not convincing enough I do not know what to say. The ones using a hyphen are: Apteva (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Air Pollution by Jet Aircraft at Seattle-Tacoma Airport Front Cover Wallace R. Donaldson
  • Intermodal Transportation: Potential Strategies Would Redefine Federal Role in Developing Airport Intermodal Strategies - Page 93
  • Calculus: Early Transcendental Functions - Page 345
  • Insiders' Guide to Seattle - Page 13
  • Climatic Studies for Proposed Landing System for Seattle-tacoma Airport, Seattle, Washington (note lower case "tacoma")
  • Climatological data: Washington: Volume 77 - Page 116
  • Climatological data - Page 50
  • InfoWorld - Jul 9, 2001 - Page 30
  • Official register of the United States - Page 420
  • Local climatological data: Seattle, Washington. National Weather Service
  • A Saint in Seattle: The Life of the Tibetan Mystic Dezhung Rinpoche - Page xxviii
  • Storm King - Page 28
  • Strategies for Improving Public Transportation Access to Large Airports - Page 35
  • The Code of federal regulations of the United States of America Volume 12 - Page 2299
  • Over My Head - Page 206
  • Adventure Guide to the Pacific Northwest - Page 209
  • Seattle - Page 225
  • Satellite transit at Seattle-Tacoma Airport
  • Pacific Northwest Adventure Guide - Page 209
  • Heat - Page 144 (uses "airport")
  • Vancouver and Victoria Colourguide - Page 171
  • Way Beyond Compare: The Beatles' Recorded Legacy, Volume One - Page 231
  • Washington for Kids - Page 48
  • The Seattle GuideBook, 12th - Page 59
  • USA by Rail - Page 46
  • University of Puget Sound College Prowler Off the Record - Page 99
  • The Encyclopedia of Unsolved Crimes - Page 91
  • Life and Death in the Central Highlands - Page 251
  • The Memoirs of John F. Kennedy - Page 22
  • Calculus of a Single Variable - Page 308
  • 2004 Pacific Boating Almanac: Pacific Northwest - Page 305
  • Seattle-Tacoma Airport master plan update low streamflow analysis
  • Summary of Hourly Observations: Seattle-Tacoma Airport, Seattle, Washington
  • Congestion pricing at Seattle-Tacoma airport
  • The Social Impact of the Seattle-Tacoma Airport on the Community
  • The Tampa and Seattle-Tacoma Airport Transit Systems
  • Black Planet: Facing Race During an NBA Season - Page 198
  • Hiking Mount Rainier National Park, 2nd - Page 6
  • Yoga Journal - May-Jun 1996 - Page 18
  • Effective Cycling: 6th Edition - Page 448
  • Worth More Dead: And Other True Cases - Page 46
  • Fodor's USA, 28th Edition - Page 972
  • Ski Snowboard America: Top Winter Resorts in USA and Canada - Page 409
  • The Shurtleff and Lawton families: genealogy and history - Page 356
  • New Scientist - Oct 2, 1975 - Page 25
  • Cruise Travel - Sep-Oct 1999 - Page 54
  • The Stranger Beside Me - Page 215
Plus thousands more... Apteva (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
As to Atlanta, the correct, actual name, as given by the Atlanta City Council in an ordinance in 2003 to change the name to "Hartsfield - Jackson International Airport", concludes "is hereby re-named Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport",[7] using two spellings within the same ordinance, and nobody makes Jackson bold. The FAA uses space hyphen space [8] but not a majority of writers (including the airport website itself). As far as I can tell the airport signs use spaces.[9] Apteva (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per MOS and proper typography, these are all instances where an en dash it correct. In all three cases the dash is used in the meaning of "and" (Seattle and Tacoma, Minneapolis and Saint Paul, William Berry Hartsfield and Maynard Jackson), which dictates the use of a dash. Arsenikk (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
    • And per your argument, no one who publishes books knows what an endash is (yet does use them where they do belong) but somehow Wikipedia editors do??? Please think about what you are saying. Apteva (talk) 03:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for ease-of-use. This is an online encyclopedia. People type these names. My keyboard has a handy hyphen key, as I would gess most do. (In fact, mine has two. Both are simple hyphens.) Let's use the character most people can easily type. I don't see a compelling enough argument to increase difficulty or obfuscation here. --Nouniquenames 04:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose—agree with Kwami. Tony (talk) 07:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Who, as I read it, said "Most common is the hyphen", and who, as I read it basically said that we should make up whatever spelling we wanted regardless of how many thousands of sources used a hyphen... Books are typeset, as I previously noted, so ease of typing has nothing to do with the choice of characters used. I personally think that pilots use hyphens for that reason, but not books. Books use whatever they think is correct, and so should we. Not because our style guide says "Hyphenation also occurs in bird names such as Great Black-backed Gull, and in proper names", but because they are correct. Apteva (talk) 02:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
      Just to be clear, I think that if the correct punctuation was an endash, which it is not, pilots would still use a hyphen. It is merely a coincidence that what pilots use is correct, just like on talk pages there is no way that I am going to worry about using a dash in a sentence - like this one, that if in a book - or in an article would use a dash. Apteva (talk) 06:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose – these airport names are styled in accordance with our MOS, and are not without support in sources. The proposal to move back to a style contrary to the MOS is a bad idea. The "ease of use" argument is nonsense; that's what redirects are for. Dicklyon (talk) 03:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    Actually, our MOS says that proper names use hyphens, so our MOS says to move them. Saying the incorrect spelling is not without support is misleading. We do not normally say gee one person spelled this name wrong does that mean that we can use it for the article name, instead of the 10,000 books that spelled it correctly? Ease of use is not an unimportant issue. There at least were reasons a few years ago for not using endash in titles. I am not sure those reasons are not still valid. But that to me is not the compelling reason for using a hyphen, nor is the guideline the compelling reason. The 10,000 books that use a hyphen is. And if the MOS did not already say that proper names use a hyphen, it would need to be corrected. Apteva (talk) 06:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    "Proper names use a hyphen"? Where does that rule come from? Proper names use hyphens in the exact same situations we use them with other sorts of words. One exception case of which you might be thinking involves hyphenated personal surnames, but that has nothing to do with the names of these airports. Powers T 00:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
    That rule comes from the same place as all rules. In the development of English as a language certain conventions became commonplace. These conventions can be found in style guides, dictionaries, and in common usage. There are hundreds of thousands, millions probably, of examples of using a hyphen in a proper name, and our MOS states that there are three situations where a hyphen is used. Item three includes the text "Hyphenation also occurs in bird names such as Great Black-backed Gull, and in proper names such as Trois-Rivières and Wilkes-Barre." It is trivial to verify that that is a valid statement. Look up any proper noun in a dictionary or in common usage and it uses a hyphen. Our rules are not made up to make us look goofy. They are made up to make us look like we are professional. Using Seattle–Tacoma International Airport, while not as "goofy" as Great Black–backed Gull, is just plain not supported by common usage. One editor thought there were "many" examples of proper nouns that use an endash, but outside of Wikipedia articles that are misnamed and need to be moved I am waiting to see even one. Apteva (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
    Comet Hale–Bopp. Guillain–Barré syndrome. Mexican–American War. Michelson–Morley experiment. Fodor's Pacific Northwest uses "Seattle–Tacoma" but "Sea-Tac", interestingly. However, I'm beginning to see the point. MOS:HYPHEN and MOS:ENDASH do indeed tend to point in the direction you indicate. I think they're wrong, however; conjunctions such as that joining Seattle and Tacoma should be dashes unless they've become idiomatic as hyphens (as Wilkes-Barre has). Powers T 14:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
    It is not Wikipedia's place to say what "should be", but only "what is". Evidently stronger arguments have been made for using only hyphens. Since syndrome and experiment are not capitalized, those are not proper nouns. Mexican-American War is correctly spelled only with a hyphen, and there are 10,000 books that use a hyphen. As to comets, I find clear and convincing evidence that our article is misnamed - do a google book search - 10 of the first 10 entries use a hyphen. Going farther is not needed. Apteva (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
    Looking to sources can be evidentiary, but it need not be conclusive. We routinely change capitalization in our article titles to match our style guide; punctuation should be treated no differently. In other words, it doesn't matter how many people hyphenate "Hale-Bopp" if our MOS asks us to use a dash. Powers T 21:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
    I could not disagree more strongly. Choosing a name is a policy not a guideline, and which is more important, a policy or a guideline? Life always involves choices. We make those choices on the basis of which is more important all the time. Apteva (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
    Capitalization is not the issue. Our style guide uses sentence capitalization and not title capitalization. Punctuation is very different from capitalization. But our MOS does not ask us to use a dash, it asks us to use a hyphen, and in one edit of our MOS, Hale-Bopp is erroneously used as an example of using an endash. That error has been noted, and hopefully will soon be corrected. Apteva (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
    Hale–Bopp is not an error; it's a good example of how the en dash is used to connect parallel items, in this case the names of two discoverers. Many sources use the en dash in Hale–Bopp this way for this reason (like the ones I linked on your talk page); this confirms that it is a styling choice. Dicklyon (talk) 00:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
    That is being discussed at Talk:Comet Hale–Bopp, but the evidence supports that it be moved back to Comet Hale-Bopp. In that case some references do not capitalize comet, making it a common name, not a proper noun, and in that case using an en dash is correct. Endashes are used in common names, not in proper names like airport names. Apteva (talk) 01:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: speedy close, disruptive, WP:SNOW. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Seattle–Tacoma International Airport → Seattle-Tacoma International Airport – WP:COMMONNAME. Approximately a 50:1 ratio of sources use this spelling. Apteva (talk) 03:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose and speedy close. This was literally discussed and rejected last month. Hot Stop (Edits) 03:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
    The move review was closed as no consensus, although the one admin who reviewed it voted to overturn the close. Apteva (talk) 05:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose and speedy close. Apteva is still unable to distinguish an en dash from a hyphen, and still doesn't understand how WP:MOS and WP:TITLE work together. He is again citing stats and even quoting page numbers as hyphen that were shown last time to be en dash. The relative popularity of these styles in other pubs is not even at issue here, so why does he need to exaggerate it? Dicklyon (talk) 06:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
    That is he or she thank you. Apteva (talk) 07:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
    Quite the opposite. I am fully aware of what a minus sign, hyphen, endash and an emdash all are and when it is appropriate to use each one. Please point out one page that is incorrect, and if it was inadvertently put into the wrong place, move it to the right place. This is after all a collaborative encyclopedia. I can find out easily enough from the page history which one was moved. As I have said many times and will say many times again, most of the times Wikipedia "gets it right". Once and a while we have an editor come along who wants to make a wp:point and we get it wrong. Usually that gets fixed in a day, week or a month, sometimes longer. This is one of those sometimes longer situations. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform, and not to inform incorrectly or to make up names for things, such as to pretend that an endash would be more appropriate in this case or in that case. Fortunately this is a trivial correction. There are no cases where an endash is used in a proper name. No one has found one, and until someone does, it is better to just accept that, and put that into the MOS. The MOS, though, does not determine titles, WP:TITLE does. The closest case anyone has found was a bridge, and even that turned out not to be close. Right now there is a conflict between the MOS and TITLE, and normally that is resolved by changing one to agree with the other. Since TITLE is policy and MOS is a guideline, I would expect to follow the policy every time. Normally our guidelines are well written. I can not say that for the current MOS. But that is another story. Apteva (talk) 07:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, again. It is entirely irrelevant how many sources use a hyphen or a dash; we have our own house style for punctuation and capitalization issues. Powers T 18:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
    So change the "house style". It is pointless to use a spelling that only 2% of the world uses in an encyclopedia that is used by everyone. Make the 2% accommodate themselves, not 98%. This is just a no-brainer. Apteva (talk) 02:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    You already tried and failed to have our manual of style changed. Give it up. Powers T 18:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    Correction - I initiated the process of changing the MOS, which is still in progress. Nothing is ever a failure or a success, simply a step toward improving the encyclopedia. Apteva (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose and speedy close Per points above. PaleAqua (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
    Seriously, does anyone have anything constructive to add? This is clearly not the correct spelling, and the article clearly is mistitled, by any standard, including the MOS. Apteva (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    No, it is not clearly the wrong spelling (please note the difference between spelling and punctuation); the article is not clearly mistitled, as it is as the correct title per consensus. Which you seem bound and determined to completely ignore. Powers T 01:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
    The words WP:LOCALCONSENSUS come to mind. I do not know of anyone other than a very few editors who think that airports are spelled with an endash, as clearly demonstrated by the overwhelming results shown below. Yes spelling includes punctuation, when it is included within the name. Apteva (talk) 03:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
    No, it doesn't. And the consensus you're ignoring is that we apply our own punctuation rules to titles without necessarily doing what everyone else does. Powers T 22:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The following books use Seattle Tacoma International Airport: (space)

  • Multimodal corridor and capacity analysis manual - Issue 399 - Page 44

The following books use Seattle–Tacoma International Airport: (endash)

  • U.S. foreign trade, statistical classification of domestic and ... - Volume 2 - Page cxv

The following books use Seattle-Tacoma International Airport: (hypen)

  • Access Seattle, 5th Edition - Page 235
  • Aviation infrastructure challenges related to building runways and ... - Page 56
  • Frommer's Washington State - Page 32
  • Intermodal transportation potential strategies would redefine ... - Page 93
  • Popular Mechanics - Aug 1954 - Page 89
  • Intermodal Transportation: Potential Strategies Would Redefine ... - Page 93
  • The Red Hat Society Travel Guide: Hitting the Road with ... - Page 295
  • Seattle - Page 203
  • Newcomer's Handbook for Moving to and Living in Seattle
  • Insiders' Guide to Bellingham and Mount Baker - Page 16
  • Fodor's Pacific Northwest - Page 321
  • InfoWorld - Jul 9, 2001 - Page 30 (Seattle-Tacoma)
  • Improving public transportation access to large airports - Page 148
  • Our Seattle - Page 34
  • Congressional Record: Volume 149 - Part 23 - Page 31691

--Partial list Apteva (talk) 06:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Remove "Christmas Tree Controversy"

This is very old information and is not of relevant importance to the article. Recommend immediate removal. 38.127.136.98 (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Delta

Does anyone know if Delta operate some flights out of Concourse A or Concourse B still? I know that a couple of weeks or months ago. I saw a couple of Delta flights in and out of SEA depart from either Concourse A or B. I know they definitely did in the past but I just want to make sure before there is an edit war. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 06:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I do know, which is why I made the edit. Historically, pre-merger Delta operated from Concourse B, then Concourse A (when the new one opened). Pre-merger Northwest operated from the South Satellite. After the merger closed, the new Delta has assumed the heritage Northwest gates in South Satellite. They do not operate regular flights from any other gates. Yes, I suppose that in a unusual circumstance with all S gates full (very unlikely and rare) they could use another gate elsewhere, but that holds true for any airline at any airport in an atypical situation. That's not worth listing. The official airport website lists Delta gates only as South Satellite, as does Delta's own terminal map. Additionally, a listing of every Delta departure for the last two days (as of this posting) shows only S gates in use by the airline. I'm honestly not sure why this is a debate. Bwmayes (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
But what about United, which the Port of Seattle lists UA in North Satelitte only. However, United is listed using both B gates and N gates but that's because United and Continental merged and they have not consolidated gate locations. Continental Airlines used gates in the B Concourse and pre-merger United used gates in North Satelitte but some pre-merger United and Continental have been using both B and N gates up until Continental has ceased. But thanks for the explanation anyways. 68.119.73.36 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Workplace accident

Do you think that this should be in the accidents/incidents section? http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Man-dies-from-injuries-in-forklift-crash-at-Sea-Tac-Airport-204574491.html A man died from injuries in a forklift crash at Sea-Tac so it would be involving the airport but not an airplane, so im not sure if this section is for airplane only incidents. I see that Halifax Stanfield International Airport has a workplace accident. Let me know, Thanks! Martinillo 06:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.airport-technology.com/projects/seatac_tower/
    Triggered by \bairport-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Seattle–Tacoma 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 03:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2016

Remove Boutique Air in the airlines section. Airline is flying to Pendleton, but has not launched service yet. No date available for start of service. Source: https://www.boutiqueair.com/p/schedule

98.225.37.49 (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Topher385 (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Editor Engaged in Edit War By Repeatedly Adding Non-Existent Alaska Airlines Routes

Hello. I just wanted to let you guys know that this editor, 2605:E000:6201:1300:79E6:3550:A1A9:5C57 (talk), has been repeatedly adding destinations to the Alaska Airlines destinations list that are currently non-existent. Can you please take a look and block him if this continues. 71.198.231.208 (talk) 06:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Xiamen

I have no intention of getting into an edit war but according to the source cited, XiamenAir's new route to Seattle does not include direct service between Seattle and Xiamen. The flight connects via Shenzhen. My understanding is that the airport destination lists are for direct flights. I keep deleting Xiamen from the destination list but people keep adding it. JediScougale (talk) 04:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@JediScougale: Direct flight involves no change in flight numbers (or aircraft), and is not necessarily nonstop. This is why two other strange 2nd-tier routes, CTU–TNA–LAX and KMG–TAO–SFO, are listed. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
@CaradhrasAiguo: My mistake. I should have said non-stop flight when I said direct flight. My understanding is that the destination lists are for non-stop flights. Is that not the case? JediScougale (talk) 08:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

China Southern Airlines from Seattle to Shenzhen Bao'an Int'l (SZX) exists?

As you know, XiamenAir offers flights from Seattle to Shenzhen. Recently on google, I was looking at the price of a Seattle to Shenzhen flight with XiamenAir when I also noticed that there is a flight from Seattle to Shenzhen via China Southern Airlines NONSTOP. I don't seem to find Seattle being a destination of China Southern Airlines, and both Shenzhen Bao'an International Airport and Seattle--Tacoma International Airport doesn't show that there is a flight towards one another via China Southern Airlines. There is no article showing that the route exists. However, I noticed that there is a flight status infobox in Google. Can you tell me if the route exists? Thanks ActivBowser9177 (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Here are the links: [[10]] [[11]]

That's a codeshare flight operated by XiamenAir. --RickyCourtney (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

So it does? ActivBowser9177 (talk) 00:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Let me put it another way... China Southern Airlines does not operate service to Seattle, but it will sell you a ticket for a flight to Seattle operated by its partner XiamenAir. —RickyCourtney (talk) 03:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I get it now. Thanks - ActivBowser9177 (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Air France

Hello, any ref to the resuming CDG-SEA leg ? Bouzinac (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I've added one. --RickyCourtney (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you but Air France does resume this route, as she was running it until 2012 [1].--Bouzinac (talk) 06:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.seattletimes.com/life/travel/seattle-bids-adieu-to-air-france/

Sea-Tac recent edit request

On 9/26/2017 at 13:38,I made an edit in which the reference number in brackets has to be changed. Scroll down to terminals, where it says The entire airport covers 2,500 acres (3.9sq.mi)...Should be reference #1, FAA Master Plan for SEA.The reference # there now leads to a local article about Sea-Tac, and that information about the size of the airport is incorrect. Also google Sea-Tac airport skyvector and Airport-data.com for additional references to confirm my edit.I don't know how to change the reference #. Thank you for your help and time.2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Seattle–Tacoma 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:

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) 02:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Destination box is problematic

It wasn't too long ago that the destination table separated Horizon flights but no more. For example, now Alaska Airlines lists Wenatchee and other small airports. In the Wikiproject Airports, the rationale is that Alaska is the marketing carrier.

It is very problematic to go on this path. That is because Emirates also is the marketing carrier for Seattle to Sacramento and many other airports.

Let's go back to separating Delta Connection and Horizon.

Vanguard10 (talk) 07:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Seattle Tacoma International Airport

AirlinesDestinations
Alaska Airlines Wenatchee, Yakima
Emirates Airlines Dubai-International, Sacramento, Denver, Pullman, Vancouver (BC), Phoenix, Honolulu

Requested move 6 April 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


Seattle–Tacoma International Airport → Seattle-Tacoma International Airport – Seattle-Tacoma is derived from the name of the city SeaTac which is in turn a portmanteau of Seattle and Tacoma, therefore the hyphen serves to simply join the two words together. If it was being used to represent a physical connection, i.e. a transport link between Seattle and Tacoma, or from Seattle to Tacoma then an en dash would be appropriate but that is not the case here. All official websites use a hyphen. Hyphenated version already exists as an article redirect – my request is to swap the names of the article and the redirect, so that Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (hyphenated) is the name of the main article and Seattle–Tacoma International Airport (with en dash) redirects to it. I have brought this up on the Talk page but I can't see that anyone could reasonably object. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Support. All the things you said were fine but you could've stopped at "All official websites use a hyphen" and left it there. Obvious support Red Slash 13:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per previous discussion and MOS:ENDASH. Official names from official sources are not necessarily the best choice for a worldwide encyclopedia, which needs some standardization, and having consistent dash use is one part of that. SounderBruce 00:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the same reasons SounderBruce mentioned. Also worth mentioning you have the chronology wrong, the name "Sea–Tac Airport" was in popular use long before the city of SeaTac was established. The name of the city is derived from the name of the airport (which is the opposite of what you said in the requested move information above). --RickyCourtney (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: per MOS:DASH and that I view "Sea-Tac International Airport" as meaning "the international airport serving Seattle and Tacoma". Just above this RM discussion on the talk page there is a parallel mini-discussion, which was started just minutes before the Requested Move nomination was posted, between me and the nominator. I mentioned MOS:DASH and the example of WP's handling of Minneapolis–Saint Paul. The nominator countered that "Minneapolis–Saint Paul [is] an area encompassing two cities, but in our example SeaTac is not an area encompassing two cities, it is simply a new city that is named after the other two." (See the link for his full comment, on 6 April 2018.) My reply to that argument, as I implied at the beginning of this post, is that this discussion is not about "Seattle–Tacoma" or "Seattle-Tacoma", an entity that does not even have a Wikipedia entry (because such a name is not in common use by itself). It is about the airport, and my position is that the airport is named for the two largest cities it serves, so an omitted conjunction ("and") is implied — exactly the situation that led to "Minneapolis–Saint Paul" (e.g) under the Manual of Style. The airport is not named for Sea-Tac or SeaTac, a usage that did not exist until long after the airport was given its name. SJ Morg (talk) 09:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
→ My response to that would be that I see no reason why the conjunction "and" should be represented by an en dash (but I agree that prepositions should). I find the Manual of Style misleading in that respect and frankly incorrect. The name of the airport in the real world involves a hyphen. I have never seen it written anywhere, other than in Wikipedia, with an en dash. That is my main objection. We are implementing a rule here that doesn't reflect the real world.Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
See MOS:DASH, subsection "In compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between". This is a pretty conventional typographical distinction between the tight compounding implied by a hyphen and the looser "and" relationship or other symmetric relationship between parallel entities. As to sources, many do use the typographical hyphen for this, not distinguishing as many guides suggest. Other sources do use the en dash as these guides suggest. Here's one; and another; and another. Dicklyon (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
→ I have already admitted my mistake (in earlier discussion above) and of course I realise the name of SeaTac, Washington is in fact derived from the name of the airport, but my other arguments still stand. Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – may as well end discussion here. I think Dicklyon has finally convinced me, although I still think the en dash looks instinctively wrong even if it's conventionally right. If nothing else, this discussion has taught me about the mechanism of requesting a page move which is something I've not done before. Thanks all. Rodney Baggins (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Seattle–Tacoma_International_Airport/Archive_2&oldid=1092060884"