Talk:Kansai International Airport

Sinking problem
The article doesn't explain the "sinking problem" at all, it just assumes the reader already knows about it or can guess. Also, I think the "History" section should go before the "Outlook" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.220.129 (talk) 08:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. What is the sinking problem? Is it still a problem? Is this airport destined to be closed by 2055 or some other future year? Locarno (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Nankai 50000 Series 50502F Rapitβ 20200228.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 関西国際空港ロゴ.svg

Same map code for all Airplane infoboxes
@Canterbury Tail Hi, first of all we should use the same method for all airports, that is, if there exists a built-in code in some template, it is preferable to use that code to avoid divergence of maps. For example, all airplane maps show the border of airports in red. See Haneda Airport and Narita International Airport.

Second, do you really think that airplane marker is redundant? If someone views this article and reaches this map, what he/she think about these two shadows? He may think that they are shadows of twin towers :). So I really think that this airplane marker is not redundant. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Um no they are not consistent methods, you are the one who has been introducing them. Your changes to maps have met with resistance in many areas and clearly don't have consensus. You cannot point at an article and go "look it's like this one" when you are the one that made that change to that article. It actually undermines your entire argument. A huge ridiculous bold border around an airport and an icon pointing to say it's an airport are completely unnecessary and actually distractingly pointless. This is just your personal preference, not a consensus and not something in all airports. If someone is looking at an article on an airport and doesn't know the map is of the airport, then there's sincere reading issues at play. Putting a huge garish border and a tag that it's an airport isn't providing any information not already there.
 * So here's the question(s). What is the use case here? What problem is making the border bright red and larger and dropping an airplane flag in the middle of a map, that we already know is about an airport, solving? What advantage is this bringing? How is this better than what is there before? Canterbury Tail talk 18:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)