Talk:Greater Rochester International Airport

Opening header

as a rochester native, the tickets are like the most expensive in the nation

• But what do published sources say? WhisperToMe (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant material

Why is there so much irrelevant material in this article? There are pictures of plane types that fly to ROC, but they were taken at other airports. There are logos of airlines that fly to the airport. Etc. Was there a reason for including all this? Nationalparks (talk) 04:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed!! I don't have time to deal with this today, but will come back in the coming days. As well, no matter which airport they were taken at, I feel like this article has too many photos. It's nice to have a few, but we don't need to see an example of every possible airplane, and every gate and taxiway (seemingly). I'll tackle that soon if no one else does. YellowAries2010 (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Plane Sizes

Please discuss the "Plane Sizes" section of the article here, not whilst warring on the page it self. Thank You. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 18:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Plane sizes do not belong in a Wikipedia article on an airport. Just the fact that ROC is a small airport doesn't make the fact that it is served by A321s or has ever seen a B747 worth reading. It means the article gets to be shorter. On the date when articles on major airports (JFK or LHR, to name two examples) include any reference to plane sizes, the ROC airport page should have them too. Until then, these are trivia. Yellow797 (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

As the person that started the so-called "war" of five edits by four different people, I (obviously) agree with Yellow797. That sort of info belongs on a fanboy spotter site, not in an encyclopaedia article. I have yet to see a single WP article about any other airport anywhere in the world that has such a section, so no-one can claim that there is any consensus to include such information. Besides that, where are the references? That alone means that the information can be removed without any contention per WP policy. If someone tells me that the info comes from hanging around the airport, then that is OR and again is against WP policy. If the info comes from a fanboy spotter site, that is not a RS and is again contrary to WP policy. For those in favour of including the info, you have to come up with something better than "I want it in the article". YSSYguy (talk) 08:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Plane sizes certainly belong in a Wikipedia article about an airport, as they are part of an airport's history, especially at a medium or smaller-size airport where larger a/c are more unusual. With respect, consensus begins with someone including a relevant category of information and a discussion occurring, so saying "there's no consensus" is circular and is no basis to remove the information. What airport the discussion starts with is not relevant either. It is not up to some readers to determine what is of interest to other readers of an article, or whether an article should be "shortened." It is fair enough to get citations and that can be done from published sources such as OAG, timetables, and newspapers. The section is also properly limited. One could make a case for not including every airline /every plane size over an airport's whole history, which would indeed be excessive for WP and more suited to a topic-specific history site. A limited section identifying largest aircraft, which are typically of most interest to readers about airport history, is not excessive and thus not trivial. Current aircraft are also suitable for a limited section, and that information is also verifiable, via official sources such as airline websites and flight-navigation sites. JKruggel (talk) 10:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

"A limited section...is not excessive and thus not trivial" is a non sequiter; the information itself is trivial, the amount of such information is irrelevant. "It is not up to some readers to determine what is of interest to other readers of an article" is contradicted by this discussion, as that is exactly what we are doing. The statement "largest aircraft, which are typically of most interest to readers" is probably a falsehood, but is nevertheless unprovable either way; all you and I can definitively say is that your opinion and my opinion are opposite. I am an aviation enthusiast and make a point of taking photos of aircraft at every airport I visit, but I couldn't give two hoots about the actual size of the aircraft at a given airport, and I have never met anyone that does; given the fact that people who go to airports specifically to look at the aircraft are a miniscule percentage of overall airport visitors and I often find myself to be alone while I am looking at aircraft, I doubt that I ever will meet such a person. As for your comments about lack of consensus, please take some time to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content, which would have been developed by consensus. If you still think that this section should exist within the article, then you should initiate a more general discussion on the Airport Project's talk page rather than continuing it here, as this discussion certainly has wider ramifications than this article. YSSYguy (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Can we get rid of the Plane Sizes section this is an encyclopedia and size is just not notable, although mention of the largest type in regular use may be of interest the rest is trivia. MilborneOne (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Current issues

Current is not an encyclopedic concept can this lot go as well none of it seems notable. MilborneOne (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Images

Far to many could do with a prune to that most relevant to the airport, the rest can be found at the commons link. MilborneOne (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080208130330/http://www.aci-na.org/stats/stats_traffic to http://www.aci-na.org/stats/stats_traffic

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 19:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

RSW Not on list of destinations?

I don't think they ended this route and if they did then the RSW page is wrong as it still has ROC as a destination (seasonal) 12.190.236.58 (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)