Jump to content

Talk:Jomo Kenyatta International Airport

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Any body knows anything about the airports construction?

Just crashes?

[edit]

it would be good to have more history on the airport, not only plane crashes

In fact there are some accidents not yet mentioned. I remember two early 90's crashes near the airport (I think both were cargo planes). But you are right, certainly there could be more meaningful information about its history, especially early years. But that kind kind of information is not readily available. Julius Sahara 20:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now I have figured out those chrashes I could remember (Somali Airways and Sudania). But the history section is still awfully short. Julius Sahara 18:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The image Image:Kenya Airports Authority logo.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:KQ parked.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:KQ parked.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 1 August 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jomo Kenyatta Airport.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Jomo Kenyatta Airport.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Airlock in the jet fuel pipeline really notable?

[edit]

Alright, the airport was completely shut down, but in my opinion this should be treated like, say, a bad weather closure. I don't consider this a notable "accident or incident".--FoxyOrange (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No issues from me in placing it in the History section. Bad weather is bad weather. An infrastructure screw-up that shuts down ops at the airport is notable if only for that very reason - it's rare. Blackwarrior (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 terminal building fire: In "history" or "accidents/incidents" section?

[edit]
Resolved
 – By creation of Nairobi airport fire

In my opinion, the "acc/inc" section should be devoted to aviation occurrences. The fire should rather be treated at the history section. What are your thoughts? Take Ben Gurion Airport as an example: Hijackings or the airport massacre are treated at the history section.--FoxyOrange (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Blackwarrior (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's what I get for editing and then checking the talk page, I just added some info on the fire to that section... Beeblebrox (talk) 01:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use of faulty primary sources

[edit]

I am going to challenge a faulty primary source in the article. It seems that some users think that an "official" website that gives a location that points to some dirt near a taxiway is "correct" and that pointing to the main terminal (or the control tower) is erroneous. The onus is on whoever wants to use the primary source to demonstrate that it is not faulty. Abductive (reasoning) 05:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the onus is on you to show why it can't be used, especially when coming from a competent national aviation authority overseen by a competent aviation regulatory body (the ICAO). The onus is on you to demonstrate that the location being referenced by the "official" source, be it an airport reference point or the point where elevation readings are collected, is faulty, or that there is an ICAO regulation that shows that an official site must reference the location of the terminal. Blackwarrior (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll bet you know that the ICAO has just such a requirement. Abductive (reasoning) 22:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not about judging the sources, but to use them to comply with a policy. IMO, the official source prevails.--Jetstreamer Talk 19:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Verify? Is it not the terminal? And Wikipedia is 100% about judging the sources. Abductive (reasoning) 22:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you are using original research to add your longitude and latitude. Find a reliable source for your version and we will no longer have a problem. AfricaTanz (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nasair service

[edit]

Can someone please make Blackwarrior (talk · contribs) understand that WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT does not require sourcing for current destinations? I don't think this revert was appropriate, but I won't war on it.--Jetstreamer Talk 19:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can leave the snark at home. You may want to help "others" understand, because that entry was deleted by someone else for, wait for it, being unsourced (check the edit history). If your issue was point 10, your reason for removing the source could've easily been "source not needed per point 10." I added the source as a backup since someone else obviously doesn't know the rule, either. Would've saved you the typing of making two entries (here and on my page). Nevertheless, the source is removed. Blackwarrior (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never said the entry was unsourced, what I wrote was "Definitely not a reliable source. We don't normally source current services either". The last part of my edit summary is exactly what point 10 says, but you're right I should have pointed at it in the edit summary.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification's sake, I didn't say that YOU said it was unsourced. Quite the contrary: "that entry was deleted by someone else for, wait for it, being unsourced." If I thought it was you, I would've named you. Just didn't feel like digging through the terminal fire edits to find the actual edit that deleted it. I'm not accusing you of making the initial delete. Blackwarrior (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sorry for the misunderstanding. Matter settled, hopefully.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's not settled. Wikipedia requires sourcing when data has been challenged or removed, or both. The standards of the airport project cannot override that policy. I have added back the source. AfricaTanz (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then, start adding sources for the rest of the current services. The policies are followed entirely, or not followed at all. I once raised this matter at WT:AIRPORTS, but the discussion didn't bore fruit. Wanna try? I think we need the view of Bishonen (talk · contribs) here.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AT, the source that you restored was challenged. I initially used that source but changed it to source the airline's Web site. Can you restore the source to the airline Web site? Also, JS, why would sources be needed for all the destinations if all of them were not removed or challenged? Are you challenging them now? If you say the policy should be followed entirely or not at all, then AT followed the policy for all the destinations that were removed or challenged, which was exactly one (the Nasair one). Blackwarrior (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you Blackwarrior, if someone challenges the assertion for Nasair, you and me will likely direct that user to the airline's schedule. That's how airport article works for current destinations, again, according to WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. At least two administrators are involved with WP:AIRPORT, MilborneOne (talk · contribs) and CambridgeBayWeather (talk · contribs), so there's nothing contradicting any policy here. Sources must be provided for future destinations, as well as for those routes that will end.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to mention that the source restored by AT is unreliable. BTW, which is the notability of the event restored here?--Jetstreamer Talk 22:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not to speak for AT, but I originally added that. The notability is that if an airport has an Accidents and Incidents section, incidents affecting its operations and caused by an aviation asset seem to be applicable to the section. Because EgyptAir 849 shut the whole airport down for over a day (and was reported in the United States as well, as opposed to just local media), I felt it applicable to be added. Same with the pipeline airliock, but I was challenged on it because it wasn't due to an aviation asset. Teh compromise was to put in in another section of the article. Blackwarrior (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who says it's unreliable besides you? AfricaTanz (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that two administrators could override one of the pillars of Wikipedia? Or that the airport project could do that? If you are, you are dead wrong. AfricaTanz (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following statement is utterly false, as any experienced editor should know: "The policies are followed entirely, or not followed at all." AfricaTanz (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You said you are following the policies. I said you're just partly doing it. If for you an entry requires sourcing, then why not sourcing the rest of the entries? You're being somewhat contradictory here. And I'm not speaking for anyone else. Let's wait for their comments.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are challenging the data, we will remove it until the unsourced become sourced. Let us know. AfricaTanz (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let me tell you that WP:VERIFY doesn't work that way. This is not a game of finding anyone challenging claims because, sooner or later, there will always be someone in that position. The policy actually says that claims should be verified a priori, not contested in order to get a reference added. However, you raised that policy but you're just sourcing a single entry. For me, that vision is, at least, strange.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one playing games. Material was challenged. A reference was added. You object to having any references. You then said that either everything should be referenced or nothing. I then said we would delete whatever is unreferenced should you challenge it, per WP:CHALLENGE. You then said I'm playing games. Nice. AfricaTanz (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to you, as per WP:CHALLENGE I should remove all the unsourced entries from the destination list. I'm afraid you are misinterpreting what you're citing: as I already told you, current destinations do not require sourcing, as per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of anything else, the airport project does not dictate what should be included in this article or whether Wikipedia's sourcing policy, one of its pillars, should be ignored. AfricaTanz (talk) 03:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of article content

[edit]

Whether particular article content is "notable" is irrelevant. Refer to WP:NNC for more information. AfricaTanz (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to this edit? Well, I find it not notable, while you do. It's clear that we need more opinions regarding the matter--Jetstreamer Talk 22:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Notability is irrelevant for article content. And I am not the editor who originally added the information. So, the consensus is against you. AfricaTanz (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is guided by WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT, which for accidents and incidents says the following: "Accidents and incidents. Accidents or incidents should only be included in airport articles if they took place at or near the airport and a) The accident was fatal to either the aircraft occupants or persons on the ground, b) The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport, c) The accident invoked a change in procedures, regulations or process that had a wide effect on other airports or airlines or the aircraft industry." The entry you restored falls in none of these categories.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I initially added the entry based on the second bullet point of serious damage to an aircraft. At the same time, because the Kenyan government used that incident as sort of the "last straw" for finally getting construction of the second runway approved, I have no qualms moving it to a new "future developments" section since there's both a new terminal AND a new runway currently under construction. Blackwarrior (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article is also within the scope of the Africa and Kenya projects. The airport project is not the sole authority on what should be included therein. AfricaTanz (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No indeed, and not even the projects all together trump consensus and common sense, if it comes to that; articles aren't the property of the projects. IMO it's pretty obvious that the episode is too trivial to be listed in an "Accidents and incidents" section. So the airport had to be closed down and incoming flights had to be diverted (apparently twelve flights in all, according to the source)? That's quite anticlimactic. Flights are rerouted every day all over the world. I've removed the entry. Bishonen | talk 09:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I see you've reverted my edit without even replying here, AfricaTanz. That's not very collaborative or polite. The incident may be worth mentioning in the "Future expansion" section, as part of a chain of cause and effect, but listing it in the accident section as well means that an intrinsically trivial incident is given undue weight. But if you're invested in preserving the list as it is, I'm done, it's hardly worth fighting over. The article isn't exactly well balanced anyway. (The airlock in the main pipeline on 5 August 2013 is another example of unencyclopedic trivia which should be removed, in that case from the "History" section.) Bishonen | talk 09:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Then I suggest that you also challenge the inclusion of Southwest Airlines Flight 345 in LaGuardia Airport's Accidents and incidents section, considering that it was "merely" a nosegear collapse at a multi-runway airfield. EgyptAir 849 shuts down the only runway at the airfield (which in turns shuts the whole field down), suffers serious damage to the airframe (which is a direct point that allows for inclusion per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT, is listed by sources as the final impetus for airfield upgrades which are discussed in the article, and was notable enough to be reported half a world away in the United States, and somehow, we're still debating whether or not it's worth mentioning? I honestly am trying to update these pages (and my interest was there well before the terminal fire). As for the airlock, again, you're defeating your own cause considering that you don't mind EgyptAir 849 being in another section to demonstrate a chain of cause and effect, yet airfield improvements and updates are coming to address the very issue of antiquated infrastructure, such as an airlock shutting down all ops at the field with no redundant systems. Blackwarrior (talk) 11:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gee whiz, you should have brought up the issue here before you deleted the information as this was material that several editors in the last few days thought should be included. But you chose not to do that. "That's not very collaborative or polite." Cheers. AfricaTanz (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Airport naming source citation

[edit]

While I cannot find a source for when the airport changed its name from Embakasi to Nairobi International, do we really need a source for when it changed from Nairobi to Jomo Kenyatta International since, well, the airport's current name is Jomo Kenyatta International? Blackwarrior (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Terminal fire details

[edit]
Resolved
 – By creation of Nairobi airport fire

Considering that no terrorism ties have been found so far regarding the 2013 terminal fire, how much detail is needed for this particular page? Reports of looting and terrorist ties may be appropriate for an article specifically about the fire, but is every nuance about the fire really necessary in THIS particular article? There was a fire, the terminal was destroyed. Why is any further detail needed aside from direct operational impact, especially considering there's still an active ongoing investigation? I am requesting that pending further developments, references to looting and terrorism ties be stricken and perhaps a new article be created specific to the fire. Thoughts? Blackwarrior (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to spin off a new article, be my guest. In the meantime I don't see what the problem is with updating the article as new developments come to light. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because the article is about the airport, not about the fire. No different than updating info on a plane crash that occurs at the airport isn't necessary. Every nuance of the investigation would not be on the airport page; it'd be on the page dedicated to the incident itself. Blackwarrior (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And the fire is an event that happened at the airport, and therefore part of its history, which should not be limited only to the dry details of "direct operational impact". Try to look at it from the readers perspective. Let's say you were not an aviation expert, just some random person who heard about the fire and wanted to know what happened. Do you really think your primary concern is going to be which other area of the airport is being used as a substitute for the area destroyed by the fire? Again, if you believe this should be spun out into a separate article, there are dozens of refs out there you could use to do so, so go right ahead. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A reader's perspective: if I wanted to know about American Airlines Flight 191, I would not expect to find a full synopsis of it on Chicago O'Hare Airport's page. If I'm a casual reader wanting to know about the airport, then yes, the fire, its operational impact and how it affects current ops is all I would expect to find because that's what virtually every other airport page has. Notable incidents have their own pages. And since it's YOU adding such details, you are just as capable of fixing it as I am (and FYI, I already have a structure typed up for it, but that's beside the point). Blackwarrior (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, BW, I'm with Beeblerox. I encourage you to start a new article for the fire incident.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. Blackwarrior (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flightmapper

[edit]

Despite the massive use in the table of destinations, Flightmapper is not a reliable source. No references are required for current destinations, but if they are to be included, airline timetables are the more suitable option.--Jetstreamer Talk 01:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should point out the errors, if any, in the FlightMapper data that has been added to this article. You should also explain your heretofore unexplained contention that FlightMapper is "not a reliable source". Who besides you believes that? As for your contention that "references are not required for current destinations", you are unambiguously wrong. AfricaTanz (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT says that references are not required for current destinations, not me. On the other hand, I've raised the matter of Flightmapper's reliability at WT:AIRPORTS.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The airport project does not control this article. AfricaTanz (talk) 05:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither do you, as per WP:OWN.--Jetstreamer Talk 11:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Add to it that Flightmapper only displays service that has been entered into it. Individuals not familiar with seasonal service and the fact that charter airlines fly to Nairobi on such a basis shouldn't use Flightmapper as merely a way to say an airline doesn't service a destination without understanding the historical patterns of air service to Nairobi. Secondarily, while one project may not claim ownership of an article, it is utterly ridiculous that U.S. airports such as Los Angeles International Airport and John F. Kennedy International Airport, fields with a VASTLY GREATER amount of air traffic than Nairobi, have no problem with an airline's Web site being enough to determine if a destination is current, yet we're in a pissing match about whether every single destination has to be sourced. Precedent says that it does not. Even African airfields such as Julius Nyerere International Airport don't do this. Having to source every single unchallenged destination implies that someone is going to check every single destination for accuracy at regular intervals. Are those adding Flightmapper sources to every destination volunteering to do that? Blackwarrior (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've already done it, when I added the sources. Checking source accuracy regularly is something everyone should do with every Wikipedia article. It is the nature of the project. If you don't like having to source everything, maybe you should get the policy changed. Until it is, we're stuck with it. The article does not say "there is no service from NBO to XXX"; so, that's a red herring. AfricaTanz (talk) 03:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Condor entry WAS sourced. You took "not having a date in the near future" as proof that service was terminated and not only challenged the source but then deleted the "unsourced" entry instead of a) simply going to Condor's site and seeing for yourself, or b) allowing someone else to do so. So which source do you want me to use: Condor's actual Web site or the specific page where I can book a flight from Nairobi to Frankfurt? Service has not been permanently terminated - it's a SEASONAL service. The destination still shows on Condor's own Web site. So if you're going to be the one checking, you've already disregarded everything I said earlier because the EXACT example I used to write that Talk entry is the EXACT example you disregarded when deleting the entry. Blackwarrior (talk) 12:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want the information in the article, then you have to source it. Extremely simple concept. I do not care which reliable source you choose. What I deleted was in fact "unsourced". Take a look at the history next time before coming here and making accusations. I did not make a determination that the service is forever terminated. Do not make assumptions about what I think. AfricaTanz (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, duh. AfricaTanz (talk) 03:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category 1 status for national authorities, not airports

[edit]

The United States Federal Aviation Administration certifies national aviation authorities, not airports or airlines, as being in Category 1 or 2. A source cited in this article wrongly states the opposite, i.e., that the Nairobi airport can achieve Category 1 status if it makes certain changes. I did not want to delete this information without an explanation here. AfricaTanz (talk) 10:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jomo Kenyatta 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) 15:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jomo Kenyatta 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) 14:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

habali na nashida apo uwanjan 154.74.127.134 (talk) 04:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jomo_Kenyatta_International_Airport&oldid=1255892638"