Talk:Zürich Airport
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] SBB in Mulhouse
Can someone explain this entry to me please:
- Zurich Airport is on the line Zurich-Winterthur-St. Gallen with rail service from Swiss Federal Railways to SBB Rail Station in Basel and Mulhouse, France, Bern Rail Station in Bern ...
According to my atlas, the cities of Basel and Mulhouse are some 30km apart. I've been to the railway stations in the centres of both cities, and they are quite distinct stations which are also presumably 30km apart. I know that Basel and Mulhouse do share an airport, and I'm wondering if this is what is causing the confusion. Certainly the above needs either removing or explaining better. -- Chris j wood 00:13, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, it seems that someone tried to contribute some of the cities and terminal points served by direct train connections from the ZRH station – besides those on on the specified line Zurich — Winterthur – but then got lost with adding Mulhouse. Perhaps this only should point out that there's a semi-direct connection by train between ZRH and the "Euroairport". The latter is losing "premium" traffic to Zurich and getting the low-cost carriers, which are giving up Zurich because of its expensive infrastructure, so there are quite some passengers using the train to "change" the airport.
- The whole paragraph is confusing and awkwardly phrased, definately a stub. "SBB Rail Station in Basel" - normally called "Basel SBB". There are definately no services to Mulhouse. "Bern Rail Station in Bern" where else would Bern station be but in Bern? Ditto for "Lausanne Rail Station in Lausanne, and Lucerne Rail Station in Lucerne". I have changed the paragraph. Hopefully nobody objects. TiffaF 13:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] External links
There was a revert war about the inclusion of this German language website ZRHwiki. At first glance this seems like an appropriate website to add. Andries 18:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- How does the English speaking Wikipedia deal with such a problem? I'm bored with rv'ing this article a few times a day... is there a standard procedure for such disputes? --Swiss Aviation Supporter 11:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- It is not an appropriate link to add, first off it's not English and it does not add anything the article does not already have, see WP:EL. Stick {{spam1}} through spamn on the users talk page if they re-add the link - try and get them to explain why they feel it adds something. I'm pretty sure it's the owner of the website adding the link too... /wangi 13:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that the German language is a drawback and that this may be valid reason not to re-add, but I disagree that the link has no added value when compated to the article. The link has much more info than the article. I propose to re-add the link. Andries 16:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Even if the link has much more info than the article, the mere fact that it is in German, as opposed to English, makes it not useful to readers of the English Wikipedia. I do not understand how the link adds value when only German speakers who read the English article can comprehend the link. Elektrik Blue 82 16:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- The link has added value for people like me who read the English Wikipedia and can also understand German. Andries 16:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Isn't it that things are done here by concensus? I am confident that only a very small minority of readers of the English Wikipedia also understands German, the majority does not. So for the majority, the link has no added value. If you go with the logic that it is ok to add a link because it is of value to a certain small minority of the users of the page, then we could add any link we want, because I am sure that any link is of value to a small minority of Wikipedia readers. So if there exists another link about ZRH but is in Tibetan, we might as well add it because it is useful to a minority of readers of the English Wikipedia who happen to also understand Tibetan. Elektrik Blue 82 17:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Let's discuss about the real issue here, ZRHwiki, and not a rather hypotetical Tibetan Web site on Zurich International Airport... I agree that ZRHwiki is published in German, however, the images, maps and other illustrations contained are certainly of use for users of this Wikipedia here. Regarding a comparison between this stub on Zurich International Airport and ZRHwiki with its many articles, I abstain from any further comment...
- Fact is that ZRHwiki is quite unique with regard to Zurich International Airport since it is the only (at least to my knowledge) wiki designated to this particular airport. And hey, if you feel a need for an English version of ZRH, why don't you just contact the responsible webmaster? ;) --Swiss Aviation Supporter 14:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- P.S.: Reverting other contributions to airport articles is kind of your favorite sparetime activty, right (according to Special:Contributions/Elektrik_blue_82 at least...). Poor guy! --Swiss Aviation Supporter 16:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- So you're into personal attacks now? Elektrik Blue 82 17:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Isn't it that things are done here by concensus? I am confident that only a very small minority of readers of the English Wikipedia also understands German, the majority does not. So for the majority, the link has no added value. If you go with the logic that it is ok to add a link because it is of value to a certain small minority of the users of the page, then we could add any link we want, because I am sure that any link is of value to a small minority of Wikipedia readers. So if there exists another link about ZRH but is in Tibetan, we might as well add it because it is useful to a minority of readers of the English Wikipedia who happen to also understand Tibetan. Elektrik Blue 82 17:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- The link has added value for people like me who read the English Wikipedia and can also understand German. Andries 16:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Even if the link has much more info than the article, the mere fact that it is in German, as opposed to English, makes it not useful to readers of the English Wikipedia. I do not understand how the link adds value when only German speakers who read the English article can comprehend the link. Elektrik Blue 82 16:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that the German language is a drawback and that this may be valid reason not to re-add, but I disagree that the link has no added value when compated to the article. The link has much more info than the article. I propose to re-add the link. Andries 16:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- It is not an appropriate link to add, first off it's not English and it does not add anything the article does not already have, see WP:EL. Stick {{spam1}} through spamn on the users talk page if they re-add the link - try and get them to explain why they feel it adds something. I'm pretty sure it's the owner of the website adding the link too... /wangi 13:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
We have many non-English external links on Wikipedia. In cases where there are many (say, 10) good English language links, they can be argued to be superfluous and will be the first to go. In more obscure topics, we keep the most notable non-English links around. I am not sure about ZRHwiki, especially seems Swiss Aviation Supporter seems to be promoting a site he is involved with (which is discouraged). Plus, no, it doesn't matter that it is a wiki, it should be judged entirely for the notability of its content. But it should not be removed simply on grounds of being in German. dab (ᛏ) 16:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- True, but if non-German users cannot navigate through the website due to their lack of knowledge of German, then how is it useful in the first place? Elektrik Blue 82 17:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- What I am concerned about is the fact that one MUST need to know German in order to navigate thru the site. The link points to a Hauptseite, a Homepage, not to a visual aid, not to a map, a diagram, or a table. Besides, I think it is more of a collection of superfluous information: i.e. it is separate articles for ZRH (a short article saying it is the IATA code of the airport), or LSZH (again a short article saying it is the ICAO code of the airport). Is this link really encyclopedic? Elektrik Blue 82 17:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- @dab: I am not involved with ZRHwiki. In the contrary, the ZRHwiki webmaster asked me to refrain from my activities here, however, I will not stop fighting against vandals like Elektrik Blue 82! --Swiss Aviation Supporter 05:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- I would suggest honouring the webmaster's wishes instead of going against his wishes and trying to "spam" the site. --Arnzy (whats up?) 14:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- @dab: I am not involved with ZRHwiki. In the contrary, the ZRHwiki webmaster asked me to refrain from my activities here, however, I will not stop fighting against vandals like Elektrik Blue 82! --Swiss Aviation Supporter 05:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- @Elektrik Blue 82: ZRHwiki is a wiki, so stubs are normal. Given your approach, Wikipedia should not be called encyclopedic either. Stubs are normal in a wiki, improvements always possible. In addition, ZRHwiki seems to use MediaWiki as well although the version is not the latest, probably for good reasons. Anyway, users comfortable with the navigation within Wikipedia will not be lost within ZRHwiki. And hey, why all the links to Wikipedia articles in foreign languages? --Swiss Aviation Supporter 05:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- So you agree that there are stubs in ZRHWiki. But then I thought that references and external links that are appropriate here in Wikipedia should be more authoritative than Wikipedia itself? I find it unencyclopedic to link a website that contains stubs for information that can be summarized in one sentence here in Wikipedia (look at first sentence in the article, and ZRHWiki has two separate articles for ZRH and LSZH. The articles about individual airliners also contain information that pertains only about that airliner and its relation to the airport. I don't find that more authoritative than Wikipedia itself. Elektrik Blue 82 12:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I don't know why you hate another indepedent wiki like ZRHwiki so much (judging from what I've read above). It's your right to despise of other wikis, however, you shouldn't vandalize Wikipedia for that reason. Thank you. --217.162.56.94 21:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Zrhwiki again
I've reverted the addition of that link again. I do not see what encyclopedic content it adds that this article doesn't already have. . Can any one provide links to unique content (diagrams, images, maps) on that site that would be a good reason to link to it? Additionally it's not a reliable source... Thanks/wangi 12:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Looking further at the site I have come across a number of interesting diagrams, and even photos... Problem is the site has no concern about copyright - diagrams are being pulled out of Unique Airport publications and photos simply downloaded off websites (e.g. Airliners.net). This leaves me with two major concerns about including a link to this site:
- It's not a reliable source (see WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided #2)
- It contains many copyright violations (see WP:EL#Links to be used occasionally #5)
- And to a lesser degree:
- WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided #1 and #7
- Thanks/wangi 13:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm starting to view the continuous attempts to add this commercial "Zrhwiki" link borders on disruption. Anyone hold this view? I know the additions seem to be spaced approximately five days apart, only to be immediately reverted. --physicq210 21:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- I took out the last one based on the talk page agreement on that. The trouble is this time it came from an IP rather than the registered user as the earlier ones had. Hard to know what to do tho' if you feel strongly it may be worth looking at getting it on the blacklist of sites? Regards --Nigel (Talk) 09:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- I just tried looking up where the IP address is located, and it seems it is from Zurich, Switzerland. I have a feeling it is the same person as the registered user who has been adding the link before. Elektrik Blue 82 22:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it's certainly disruptive. Thanks/wangi 23:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Elektrik blue 82, Please do not write in the edit summary that there is consensus, because there is none. Andries 18:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- Andries, please see my detailed reasoning for not adding the link above - do you disagree with those points? Thanks/wangi 18:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- In particular consider this quote from WP:EL: "Links to sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations. Sites which fail to provide licensing information or to respond to requests for licensing information should not be used. (Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States.)". Thanks/wangi 18:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- Andries, please see my detailed reasoning for not adding the link above - do you disagree with those points? Thanks/wangi 18:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- I just tried looking up where the IP address is located, and it seems it is from Zurich, Switzerland. I have a feeling it is the same person as the registered user who has been adding the link before. Elektrik Blue 82 22:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Keeping my thoughts on whether it's the same person we were dealing with a few months ago to myself, regarding that link I think it's time to add that link to the black-list considering the number of times it was added by anon IPs in a similar range - Zurich Airport edit history. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 09:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- That isn't a bad idea, except that I do not know as of this moment how to add it. /ɪlεktʃɹɪk bluː/ 15:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] ZRHwiki yet again
ZRHwiki is a wiki and therefore as reliable as Wikipedia (or not). I don't see any proof of copyright violations, why don't you just assume that pictures, etc. are used with lawful permission? --217.162.56.94 21:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- ZRHwiki doesn't violate copyrights as far as I know. If you're of a different opinion, feel free to contact the ZRHwiki administration. There's at least a copyright policy (http://www.zrhwiki.ch/wiki/ZRHwiki:Nutzungs-_und_Lizenzbestimmungen) --217.162.56.94 21:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia goes to great length to ensure images used are properly tagged with source and copyright details, ZRHwiki might well list the source of some photos, but they are copyrighted photos - unless permission is demonstrated then we should not assume it has been given. Likewise Wikipedia believes in referencing sources (see WP:CITE and WP:RS), I cannot find similar on your wiki. I see no reason to link to the site given the concerns I voiced above, and indeed many reasons not to (like for starters it's not even in English) - Wikipedia is not here to advertise your website; it does not matter if that site is a "wiki" or whatever. Please stop disrupting this article, have a read of WP:EP and WP:3RR. Thanks/wangi 21:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- According to http://www.zrhwiki.ch/wiki/ZRHwiki:Nutzungs-_und_Lizenzbestimmungen , it's default Swiss copyright law by default. Publishers might choose other licenses. I simply clicked on one of the pictures on the "Hauptseite" (http://www.zrhwiki.ch/wiki/Bild:LSZH_Tunisair_A320200_20060506_001.jpg) and in the picture information, there are mentioned the source and the photographer. But I know it's hopeless you don't care. You hate independent wikis in many of them I actively contribute, wikis on specific topics with a certian depth and not just very general knowlege like Wikipedia. That's the reason why I start to hate you as much as you hate wikis outside the Mediawiki network, I spend a lot of time with other wikis (I don't own a wiki myself). --217.162.56.94 21:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Click through to the source, that image is tagged as "©Patrick Wirth" and no licence is given to use on other websites, and no proof of permission is given either. Repeat for the other images on the site (for a very specific case where further use is explicitly not allowed try one of the images with airliners.net as the source). Thanks/wangi 22:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- According to http://www.zrhwiki.ch/wiki/ZRHwiki:Nutzungs-_und_Lizenzbestimmungen , it's default Swiss copyright law by default. Publishers might choose other licenses. I simply clicked on one of the pictures on the "Hauptseite" (http://www.zrhwiki.ch/wiki/Bild:LSZH_Tunisair_A320200_20060506_001.jpg) and in the picture information, there are mentioned the source and the photographer. But I know it's hopeless you don't care. You hate independent wikis in many of them I actively contribute, wikis on specific topics with a certian depth and not just very general knowlege like Wikipedia. That's the reason why I start to hate you as much as you hate wikis outside the Mediawiki network, I spend a lot of time with other wikis (I don't own a wiki myself). --217.162.56.94 21:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia goes to great length to ensure images used are properly tagged with source and copyright details, ZRHwiki might well list the source of some photos, but they are copyrighted photos - unless permission is demonstrated then we should not assume it has been given. Likewise Wikipedia believes in referencing sources (see WP:CITE and WP:RS), I cannot find similar on your wiki. I see no reason to link to the site given the concerns I voiced above, and indeed many reasons not to (like for starters it's not even in English) - Wikipedia is not here to advertise your website; it does not matter if that site is a "wiki" or whatever. Please stop disrupting this article, have a read of WP:EP and WP:3RR. Thanks/wangi 21:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I am getting the feeling that you are the guy we are dealing with a few months ago. You still haven't answered the challenges presented above. You said ZRHwiki is a wiki and therefore as reliable as Wikipedia (or not). I don't see any proof of copyright violations, why don't you just assume that pictures, etc. are used with lawful permission?, yet it would be ideal for an external link to be more reliable than Wikipedia itself. Assuming that pictures are used with lawful permission wouldn't lead you into a good end, since that reasoning would then permit everyone to assume just anything. Cheers. /ɪlεktʃɹɪk bluː/ 21:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- I am getting the feeling that you are the guy we are dealing with a few months ago. Wrong!
- You still haven't answered the challenges presented above. You hadn't contacted me so far!
- You said ZRHwiki is a wiki and therefore as reliable as Wikipedia (or not).' That's obvious!
- Assuming that pictures are used with lawful permission wouldn't lead you into a good end, since that reasoning would then permit everyone to assume just anything. You didn't read the ZRHwiki copyright policy, did you? Look at http://www.zrhwiki.ch/wiki/ZRHwiki:Nutzungs-_und_Lizenzbestimmungen#Lizenzbestimmungen ! AFAIK is the club behind ZRHwiki even chaired by a lawyer, so I'm pretty sure that copyright infringements wouldn't be tolerated. I don't know about your country, but in Western Europe, lawyers have to follow the law.
- --217.162.56.94 21:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] History
This article is lacking in historical information... I cam across:
- On May 5, 1946 the citizens of Canton Zurich approved by referendum a proposal to spend 36.8 million Swiss francs for the building of an intercontinental airport. Construction began that very summer, and the airport was inaugurated on August 29, 1953
on http://www.historycentral.com/Aviation/airports/Zurich.html but it is unsourced - does anyone know of sources for this information? Thanks/wangi 13:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Airport name
Why is this article entitled "Zürich International Airport"? The airport is called officially "Zürich Kloten", and the English-language version of the airport website calls it just "Zurich Airport" (http://www.zurich-airport.com). The word "International" is incorrect and should be removed. TiffaF 06:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- I concur. The article should be at "Zürich Airport." I will move it in five days if there is no opposition against such a move. --210physicq (c) 01:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- I support the move. I remember the terminal just says "Flughafen Zurich." It doesn't have any word for international on it. So it should be Zurich Airport. --Coolcaesar 04:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- It's "Flughafen Zürich" indeed. --217.162.56.94 21:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- I support the move. I remember the terminal just says "Flughafen Zurich." It doesn't have any word for international on it. So it should be Zurich Airport. --Coolcaesar 04:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

