Talk:Logan International Airport

Clean-up of the Ground transport section
Looking through the Ground Transport section, it appears some the information is poorly framed and includes non-relevent information (ie Uber and Lyft mass messaging it user base to protest massport changes). Ideally I think the intention of the original submitter was to include all the options but got lost in writing all the details. 68.229.80.75 (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

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) 19:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * United-states-boston-logan-airport-terminal-a.jpg

Noting which airlines have suspended service
After waiting over a year to see if someone else was going to do it, I have noted those airline services that have not restarted following the withdrawal of flights in 2020 due to the COVID pandemic. This has been repeatedly reversed, despite citing reliable sources in each case, and being completely in keeping the standard practice for articles on major airports around the world—including at other entries in the same Airlines and Destinations section of the article itself, as there is a surfeit of other such notations made by other editors at Delta, JetBlue, etc, and recently another contributor input the ITA information for their future flights to Rome using the exact same format! I highly doubt that there could be a constructive suggestion as to why the Logan page would not follow this consistent convention, but if so I'd be very interested to hear that opinion. Otherwise there has to be a valid basis for undoing these citations other than the classic, tautological catch-all fiat "it's not encyclopedic" when it's simply the mundane practice of Airport articles on Wikipedia and is not disallowed or controversial at all of those dozens of articles.

I've long been aware that there has been a high degree of territory-marking and turf claiming on the Logan Airport article, so I limit my contributions here, but at some point this is getting out of hand when legitimate, factual edits which enhance the relevant information on the page, in line with what is done at virtually all other airport pages, is disallowed by another editor. It smacks of subjectivity. Unless that editor is going to go across Wikipedia and delete all the remarks noting '(suspended)' '(begins X date)' or '(resumes X date)' etc etc across hundreds of Airport articles, than this nothing more than guarding a pet article and applying personal preferences which only results in a less accurate article. To remove this information would suggest to the reader, for instance, that Cabo Verde Airlines has continued to connect Logan to Praia, just as BA is flying daily to London or JAL to Tokyo, when it is verifiable that Cabo Verde Airlines has not flown at all in over a year and is not serving Boston. How is that defensible? —Dfiner (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)


 * See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 19. Garretka (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)


 * That short section has literally not been updated since March of 2020 when the situation was indeed volatile and constantly changing. More than 18 months later we have reached a new steady state with regards to these services. Dfiner (talk) 21:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a directory - such detail is overly directory like. Andrewgprout (talk) 23:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Agreed, we don’t list temporary suspensions, the has been widely discussed since the start of the pandemic. These routes will at some point since travel is slowly opening back up. Rzxz0839 (talk) 15:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)


 * These are not "temporary" suspensions, they have been out of service for more than a year! How is it better and more factual to show them as if they are still in operation? If such detail is not fit for Wikipedia—a totally unsupported assertion—then how does this same reasoning not apply to all of the rest of such notations in this very article itself—much less across all Airport articles? This is simply more edit warring behavior from talk. Dfiner (talk) 21:19 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 30 December 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved.  Arbitrarily0  ( talk ) 23:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Logan International Airport → Boston Logan International Airport – The official website of this airport uses this title. Many secondary sources seem to use this title although I’ve seen some use the short form of Logan Airport. Interstellarity (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose as it is already at its common name. Logan International or Logan International Airport is known worldwide, so the shorter name is both briefer and recognizable. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Textbook case of WP:COMMONNAME. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per the state government, it isn't even Logan Int'l Airport. It's "General Edward Lawrence Logan International Airport " per the legislation CaribDigita (talk) 02:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:COMMONNAME. AyaK (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 18:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)