Jump to content

Talk:Seattle–Tacoma International Airport/Archive 3

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

Seattle-Tacoma should be hyphenated

It has occurred to me that there should not be an en dash in "Seattle–Tacoma" joining the two words together, rather it should be hyphenated "Seattle-Tacoma".

Reason: 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 yes an en dash would be appropriate but that is not the case here.

Examples:

All other official websites that refer to the airport use a hyphen in the name. I have not found a single site that uses an en dash, other than those that have lifted information directly from Wikipedia! Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I see that there is already a redirect for "Seattle-Tacoma International Airport" (hyphenated) which takes you to this article "Seattle–Tacoma International Airport" (with en dash). I believe that "Seattle-Tacoma International Airport" (hyphenated) should be the name of the main article and "Seattle–Tacoma International Airport" (with en dash) should be redirected to it. Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Atlanta airport's official name has the same problem: "Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport" is named for two Atlanta mayors, their two names Hartsfield and Jackson should be hyphenated and the associated websites use hyphens. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The airport's name is not derived from the name of SeaTac, Washington; if anything, it was the other way around. The town of SeaTac was only incorporated in 1990. The airport has had its name for much longer than that. Using an en dash is consistent with practice with similar names on Wikipedia, such as Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex and Minneapolis–Saint Paul. See WP:MOSDASH under "In compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between". SJ Morg (talk) 12:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Correct, the name of SeaTac, Washington is in fact derived from the name of the airport, my mistake. My other arguments still stand though, the main argument being that related (non-wiki) websites state the name using a hyphen and it is incorporated into the airport's official name. I have read the relevant part of WP:MOSDASH but I can only see that Seattle-Tacoma is a concatenation of two names, the hyphen does not signify a missing preposition, similar to the example given "Wilkes-Barre, a single city named after two people"; in our example SeaTac is named after the two cities of Seattle to the North and Tacoma to the South. The other example given is "Minneapolis–Saint Paul, 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. Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi everyone, don't worry, I'm not about to re-ignite the debate about hyphenating Seattle–Tacoma International Airport, I know I lost that argument and sort of understand why (even though I still think it looks a bit odd using an en dash, hee hee). Anyway, a couple of other things have come up and I thought this would be a good place to get opinions so I can decide what to do.

  1. Tenerife-North Airport uses a hyphen, presumably because the "North" modifies the "Tenerife" and the hyphen is not in place of a preposition in this case. Right? But Tenerife–South Airport uses an en dash. I would have thought that would follow the same rule. Actually I've been a wee bit cheeky and changed the South one so it's also hyphenated, but if I was wrong to do that, I apologise and it can easily be reversed anyway. But surely North and South should both be the same, hyphen or dash, but consistent. Right? But you'll be telling me next that they should both use en dash because Tenerife–North serves the North and Tenerife–South serves the South so in some warped world of logic, the en dash represents the words "to the" or something along those lines.
  2. When an international airport is described by its location linked with its name, shouldn't the location and name be hyphenated rather than connected with an en dash? For example, I'd have thought that London's Heathrow Airport should be described as "London-Heathrow" not "London–Heathrow". I've found some examples where an en dash is used and I would like to know if that is correct. E.g. Barcelona–El Prat Airport, Madrid–Barajas Airport, Alicante–Elche Airport, Milan–Malpensa Airport. I've also seen Orly Airport written as "Paris–Orly", Berlin Schönefeld Airport written as "Berlin–Schönefeld", Moscow Domodedovo Airport written as "Moscow–Domodedovo", etc. etc. They're clearly correct, otherwise there wouldn't be so many examples of them. But I'm a wee bit confused so please enlighten me as to what the en dash is there for this time.

Thanks in eager anticipation. Rodney Baggins (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: I think you should be able to help me here. Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Tenerife should use a space, like in the articles and the sources; see Talk:Tenerife–South Airport for a new RM discussion on this. The en dash in the others is really a sort of loose connection, or connection/separation, between names, places, or such; a hyphen would imply a much tighter connection, like a London-Heathrow being a thing, like when someone adopts a married name pair as a single name. But that's not really the relationship between London and Heathrow here, or between Madrid and Barajas, or Hartsfield and Jackson, etc. Many "official" sites have styles in which en dashes are rendered as hyphens; this is mostly because "officials" don't know the first thing about typography, and because Microsoft didn't ever provide an easy way to type an en dash (Steve Jobs did study calligraphy and typography, and the Mac has had en dash on its keyboard since its 1984 introduction). Dicklyon (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining that. Glad the Tenerife airports are (hopefully) going to be renamed. Your explanation re. London Heathrow, etc. makes sense so thanks again. I definitely have a bit of a hang-up about the old en dash, we just don't seem to get on at all... Rodney Baggins (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Cite reference to Sea-Tac airport

Hello and good day. Today I attempted to change the source position where it says:The entire airport covers an area of 2,500 acres (10sqkm or 3.9 square miles) with FAA Airport Master Plan for SEA.I want it put after that, the source icon.Thank you. I am sure it is a minor adjustment.2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Dicklyon (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Singapore should not be listed here

I could not find any sources that there is a flight from Seattle to Singapore. Delta flies from Seattle to Tokyo and Tokyo to Singapore, and both flights happen to have the same number, but all passengers get off the plane and the flight crew (which has reached its maximum hours) is replaced. "Direct" flights should only be listed when passengers stay on the plane and the route is offered as a single flight. Reywas92Talk 01:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Passengers on all direct flights get off the plane - that is not the definition of a direct flight. Same plane, same flight number, it probably should be listed. Andrewgprout (talk) 02:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Many airlines schedule direct flights with stops without passengers getting off. I have been on a flight from Amsterdam to Entebbe, stopping in Kigali without deplaning. Southwest flight 2482 goes from Seattle to Austin, stopping in San Jose for 35 minutes while continuing passengers can stay on the plane. That could plausibly be included in this article, but Singapore should not unless there's some evidence it's can be a one-seat trip - I don't think so with a three-hour layover and 21 hours altogether. Delta's own website highlighting international flights from Seattle does not include Singapore. There's no practical effect from Delta using the same number for the separate Tokyo-Singapore route otherwise. Reywas92Talk 03:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Actually WN 2482 continues on to Kansas City from Austin with the same plane. Even though you can buy that route (or SEA-SMF-DEN-MCI on WN 1101) if you're some sort of flying sadist, it would be ridiculous to list that as a destination here, were there not already a nonstop direct route on WN 1749. Southwest and others may have additional combinations of direct flights to cities not already in the article, but these articles become impractical when including flight combinations that still include a layover even if on the same number. Reywas92Talk 03:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
As per a discussion a number of years ago regarding listing "continuing service" international destinations as destinations for SeaTac, it was decided not to list them. The discussion at the time was whether Seoul should be listed as a destination for Northwest Airlines from Seattle. Northwest did not serve Seoul non-stop from Seattle, but one of the Narita flights had continuing service to Seoul. Even though the flight number may be the same, this is better characterized as continuing service in my opinion. I think Singapore should not be listed as a destination for Delta from Seattle unless Delta has non-stop service from SeaTac, or if it is listed, it should be designated as via NRT.ProfessorDoktorFaust (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The "Threatened Southwest Airlines Switch" section should be deleted

It is a moot point. It never happened. It won't happen. The issues that gave rise to the discussion aren't relevant anymore, and the points raised in the section have nothing to do with past, current, or future operations at the airport. If anything there should be a section on new service at Paine, but I don't even think that is relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:9C00:970:D552:ADF3:5D47:A484 (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I concur. This is no longer relevant or necessary.ProfessorDoktorFaust (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Are there any further opinions on this?ProfessorDoktorFaust (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I will remove this text, since it no longer seems to be relevant. Please feel free to discuss if you think it should be maintained. ProfessorDoktorFaust (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

10th August 2018 incident

Should this incident be labeled as Hijacking? I have heard that hijacking in when the control is taken over while in transit? AFAIK this incident was a theft of a plane from ground? Pranjal.3029 (talk) 08:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

This incident was not a hijacking. Stealing a plane is not a hijacking _ somewhat akin to the distinction between robbery and burglary.Andrewgprout (talk) 09:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Philippine Airlines

I request that Philippine Airlines should be added into the list of airlines serving Seattle-Tacoma Int'l Arpt. since it began service in May 3, 2020 from Manila.

KaTipunan (talk) 04:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Just checked their site and flights to SEA don't appear to be available. Do you have a reference? Retswerb (talk) 04:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

D gates hardstand terminal

This project was completed, according to the Port of Seattle, on October 31st, 2018. Should the section still be there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MTMaster (talk • contribs) 03:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. This section should be removed, or at least edited to reflect the project completion.ProfessorDoktorFaust (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done --RickyCourtney (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Route map

@LeoFrank: There's a lot of precedent for including route maps made with Great Circle Mapper in airport articles; most recently, I came across one at Manchester–Boston Regional Airport. GCM allows their maps to be used on Wikipedia; a lot of them were uploaded to Commons (which is not acceptable) and are in the process of being moved over to local hosting on Wikipedia. See c:CAT:Great Circle Mapper. The tool is very easy to use; editors can easily create new versions of maps if the routes change. I don't edit much in this area but there are maps in other airport articles and WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT doesn't comment on them. Personally I've found the maps very useful/encyclopedic when researching airline routes, and I find it a bit annoying that they're included so inconsistently in airport articles. "No consensus" is just that: no consensus. It's not a reason to revert either additions or removals. ― Tartan357 (Talk) 04:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

By "static" are you referring to it being necessary to upload a new version of the file each time the routes change, or the fact that it's a raster image? ― Tartan357 (Talk) 05:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Tartan357, There have been several discussions on destination maps and none of them have come to an agreement whether to include or not include. Even though some editors wanted the maps to be included, there was no agreed upon format.
Yes, by static I mean, there needs to be a new image uploaded every time there is a change in the destinations. — LeoFrank  Talk 08:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Alaska and Horizon joined or separate entries?

Just curious, why are Alaska and Horizon joined under one entry for the destination list, when for all the other US carriers the regionals are separate (United/United Express, American/American Eagle, Delta/Delta Connection)? Why is Horizon basically invisible here? --Mezaco (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

This has been the source of a lot debate. Short answer: Horizon isn’t listed separately because Alaska doesn’t utilize a sub-brand for its regional flights. If you have further questions or concerns, I’d recommend discussing them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports. — RickyCourtney (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Seattle–Tacoma_International_Airport/Archive_3&oldid=1185972979"