Talk:Zurich Airport/Archive 1

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)

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 #2)
 * It contains many copyright violations (see WP:EL #5)
 * And to a lesser degree:
 * WP:EL #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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. --210 physicq  ( 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)

Linking ZRHwiki again and again
I'm the administrator of ZRHwiki (http://www.zrhwiki.ch). I consider ZRHwiki a reliable source – as reliable as a wiki can be, i.e. every wiki's reliability depends on its users – and I have never been contacted with regard to Wikipedia and a copyright violation. I agree, however, that ZRHwiki should indeed not get linked from the Zürich Airport article here in the English Wikipedia. All ZRHwiki content is in German and has therefore only limited use for visitors of the English Wikipedia.

Thank you for your consideration! --ZRHwiki (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just as a note: V "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable.[nb 4]" WhisperToMe (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Page moved. Google books is a persuasive argument. However that is not sufficient information to establish the name on its own here. If you consider that the US airlines on their web sites also don't use the umlaut, we now seem to be establishing the case that allows us to select The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage. Then we look at the airport's English site and there are no umlauts. In the text Zurich is used and it is the only form used on the pages I checked (for the airport). I will note however that the page does deal with the umlaut problem in an interesting way for the logo when there the umlaut is replaced with a stylistic accent added to the the u. The airport itself apparently makes a distinction as seen in statements like Flughafen Zürich AG operates Zurich Airport. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Zürich Airport → – The name of Zurich with an umlaut is not official and not shown around other airports. The official website in English doesn't use any umlaut in its English name and respects the English and international spelling of Zurich. The use of the Umlaut is a germanization of an official English translation that should not happen here. Ngagnebin (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC) — Relisting.   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 14:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support but with failing courage. The city of Zurich is known to many Engish speakers, and the umlaut is rarely used in English, and then often for poetic or similar effect, see Zurich. But see also Talk:Zürich and Talk:Zürich/Archive 2. I guess we could say that the airport name is even more rarely shown with the diacritic than the city name... ah well... Andrewa (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Seems like an "if it's not broke, don't fix it" kind of thing.  The spelling of Zürich on Wikipedia appears to be, well, Zürich, such as at Canton of Zürich and Zürich.  Umlauts are not unheard of in English, for instance noël, naïve, über, etc, and also there are many other pages on Wikipedia that use diacritics in the title such as the place names mentioned earlier, people such as Nicklas Lidström, etc.  Rejectwater (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've left a note at Talk:Zürich letting them know about this discussion. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The official name is irrelevant to the naming of the Wikipedia article. I agree with Rejectwater that umlauts are present in loanwords, so I don't see this as a Germanization. It's debatable which spelling is more common for the airport name, but the consistency with Zürich, Canton of Zürich, etc. seems preferable. --skew-t (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:UE, decisions should be made on what is the usage in English language reliable sources. What evidence do you use to conclude that "It's debatable which spelling is more common for the airport name"? If Zürich was to be moved to Zurich then would you support the move of this page to Zurich Airport? -- PBS (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't disagree with UE, nor did I argue that some other language should be used. Loanwords are those that have been adopted into English. So far no sources beyond the official site have been provided showing usage either way, so I say it's debatable, as in there can be further discussion on that point. The rational given by the original post was that the article should use the official name. And yes, I'd be more inclined to support a move if it is consistent with the parent article. --skew-t (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A Google book search returns
 * 107 on Zürich-Airport -Zurich-Airport in English.
 * 790 on -Zürich-Airport Zurich-Airport in English.
 * This is evidence that in reliable English language sources the use of "Zurich Airport" is about eight times more common than "Zürich-Airport". Do you still think "It's debatable which spelling is more common for the airport name"?-- PBS (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't think one Google comparison ends discussion. My main argument however is the official name is irrelevant and consistency is preferable. --skew-t (talk) 08:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source that would indicate that the Google Book is not a fairly accurate survey of reliable source usage? If the wording is changed to indicate that the move should be made because "Zurich Airport" is by far the most common usage in reliable language sources would you then change your opinion? It is this use of consistency that is why I have persistently objected to its inclusion in the policy as consistency should not be used to overrule the usage in reliable sources. Let us suppose that the name Zurich was being used for the city name but reliable sources showed that English language usage favoured "Zürich Airport" over "Zurich Airport" do you think we should have it a "Zurich Airport"? -- PBS (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - per my comment at Talk:Zürich, I'd remove the umlauts from both titles.--Kotniski (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support The present title of the article on the city is itself debatable; there is no necessity to be consistent with it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Zürich Airport discomfort.
I found the airport hard to find my way about. There would be one sign pointing where to go, far away from the destination. It was easy to get lost, which I did. One passes many glamorous shops, but finding a place to sit down was not easy. I am not young and need to sit down on occasion. The men's restroom near the gate was up a two landing flight of stairs, and of course I had to lug my carry on suitcase up these stars. The airport is glamorous but far from comfortable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.53.234.106 (talk) 08:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Name reprise
We now have a clear decision at Talk:Zürich documenting that WP:EN's name for the city is 'Zürich' rather than 'Zurich'. For consistencies sake, it is clearly desirable that other 'child' articles are renamed in line, and I and others have been doing so.

However I'm not at all certain that this article should be renamed in the same way. The previous decision on this article in 2010 (above) is not particularly predicated on the city name, and the airport operator clearly and consistently uses 'Zurich Airport' and/or 'Flughafen Zürich' (depending on the language of the communication) but never the hybrid 'Zürich Airport'.

Also as it describes an international airport, the article context is clearly rather different to other articles of more local significance.

I've just amended the article to replace all references to 'Zürich Airport' with 'Zurich Airport', which is consistent with the article name, but retained 'Zürich' for more general usages. I think that is the correct answer, but I suspect not all will agree. What do others think?; should we rename or not?. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 10:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We already had this discussion a long time ago and we already had a discussion on Zurich regarding the Umlaut. I don't know why they keep on insisting to put the Umlaut in English when the English form does have a translation of "Zürich" in "Zurich". Therefore, even the Airport names itself without the Umlaut in English so I would oppose any change. The problem we have is that often in Switzerland, Swiss-German people translate websites into English from German and they keep the German form when it exists obviously a correct English spelling. I think one should stick to the solely and only official name in English which is "Zurich Airport". Ngagnebin (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Name in English
I'm sorry, but I do not accept the «germanised» spelling of Zurich Airport with the Umlaut into English, when even the official website of the airport uses "Zurich" without umlaut to name itself. Please, at least, do respect the official name and official appreciation of its denomination. --User:Ngagnebin 1:22, 3 Februaty 2010 (UTC)
 * The above editor is so much on target. It is really silly to use these umlauts in an English-language encyclopedia. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

What the point of voting on the name then ?
I just read the article today and I clearly wonder why do we ever vote on agreeing on an article name/entry on Wikipedia when we clearly reach an agreement about keeping « Zurich Airport » without umlaut and then some people just change it with an umlaut again without any vote and consideration for the discussion(s) held here. I'm seriously considering forgetting contributing to Wikipedia in English as is seems it becomes a banana-republic concerning cooperation amongst its members and democratic discussions leading to an agreement that are just thrown into garbage by others' decisions to make their own rules. I'm getting fed up with this... -.-" Ngagnebin (talk) 07:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2015
I wanted to change and add clarifications on the 'airport of Zurich

Airplane00ZRH psa (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  11:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2015
I want to change and add many things as destinations and an airline in Zurich airport. please can unblock me? Zurich Airport is the life for me I love it.

Airplane00ZRH psa (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

❌ This is not the place to request extra user rights, try Requests for permissions/Confirmed instead. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And if you are User:Zurich00swiss, you are the exact reason this article is protected. HkCaGu (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2015
Rio de Janeiro–Galeão

191.250.248.24 (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  22:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2015
I would to edit and add the new destination rio de janeiro and Calgary whit edelweiss air

Newdestination (talk) 10:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

❌ This is not the place to request additional user rights, try Requests for permissions/Confirmed instead, or wait 4 days and make 10 edits elsewhere. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2015
Please change Edelweiss to Calgary to seasonal because new service will be seasonal.

Chakvetadze08 (talk) 11:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2015
Edelweiss to Las Vegas became seasonal

207.47.85.91 (talk) 04:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 07:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

new destination
what could be the new destinations that may start at the airport in Zurich ? InternationalAirlines (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Germania Fug/HolidayJet
yesterday Germania Flug put in its official site the destinations for Summer 2016 when after the destinations served by Germania Flug weren't in the Germania Flug's site. Now the situation is very confused and I don't know what I can do in the section about Airlines and Destinations!-- The  aviation   user. Zurich00swiss (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Please use puntuaction, as I can't seem to understand you. Could you explain the situation in a little more detail? Also, please do not invade WikiProjects and talk pages by posting "ping" messages to this disscussion everywhere. This is known as "disruptive editing" and could get you blocked. 46.208.99.33 (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Zurich Airport Circle
I think we should create new section Zurich Airport Circle in Zurich Airport. Do you think is a great idea or not? Zurich00swiss (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by circle?  RMS52  Talk to me  22:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@User:RMS52 The circle at Zurich Airport: The  aviation   user. Zurich00swiss (talk) 10:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

It may be more appropiate in this article.  RMS52  Talk to me  15:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@User:RMS52 Yes, but it is always a part of ZRH. The  aviation   user. Zurich00swiss (talk) 05:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I know, feel free to add on the article, Zurich.  RMS52  Talk to me  09:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have trimmed the overly detailed info, as that is better suited for an article about the building itself. The Banner talk 18:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As mr. Zurich00swiss insisted on making the part about The Circle promotional, I have now completely removed it. The part WAS promotional, especially for a building that is only completed in 2018 (three years from now). Without proper sources (conform WP:RS, it should not be mentioned here. The Banner  talk 18:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@The Banner, Only because it is not yet build is not a reason for deleting yout this informations. Also serious projects are notable on wikipedia. The part you had deleted outwas from user Zurich00 equiped with well and enoug differend references. If you are not interested in a topic this doesen't mean that this is advertisment. I see that Zurich00, and also I have a differend opinoin. Think this should be discussed by more people to see if its notable or not... Wikipeda 3 Person Opinion. FFA P-16 (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it was not sourced properly, as one of the sources is clearly related. Secondly, information must be notable and brought in a style and tone that is neutral. His (and your) addition fail on that. And indeed, discussion is welcome but I do not see User:Zurich00swiss to explain why the promo is needed. The Banner talk 19:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I read it again. I found it is sourecd well enough, also from a interpendet newspaper article.First hand surces are also given and important. It is notable for the Article who is about zurich Airport.. this circel building is important for the future of the airport as today many airports have today to offer more than just "a flight". I don't see anything who is not neutral or who is advertisment /promo. I see only a few examaples for what this building is planed. Sorry but not everything you don't are interestet in is just "promo". FFA P-16 (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@User:The Banner "When it is sooo notable, why don't you write an article about the building? But here it is promo for an unfinished building)" No I don't need a seperat article for this ( this Question was already discussed) It is part of the "system" of Zurich Airport the whole Building Cluster, Existing and future Buildings Are Part of the Airport. I don't see what should be promotial in a building who will be finished in a little more than 2 years. Othervise we can't have any article on wikipedia about any project who is not finished today. Please Explani what is promotial here.FFA P-16 (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have suggested a more neutral version without out the puffery details. That is enough. There are more airports where buildings are build, no reason to give each and everyone an article or even a mention. Not every detail is noteworthy. The Banner talk 15:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC) And please, improve your English.

Another look
The Banner has added the following template to this section:

I'm assuming that the wording being complained about is this:


 * The Circle, a complex intended to include a medical center, a conference center, shops, restaurants, offices and hotels, is under construction opposite the Airport Centre. The complex was designed by Japanese architect Riken Yamamoto, is currently under construction and planned for completion in 2018.

I've read and re-read this several times, and each time all I see is a simple factual statement about what is going on opposite the main terminal building of the airport. It is relevant to this article because anybody travelling through the airport will pretty soon (if not already) see the building work, and the question "what is going on there" is a perfectly reasonable one to ask of WP. I'm at a loss to see anything in those words that "is written like an advert" or that seeks to promote either The Circle, the architect or anything else.

To be specific, comparing the five strictures of WP:PROMO to this paragraph:
 * 1) Does not apply - the paragraph does not contain any recognisable advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment
 * 2) Does not apply - the paragraph contains only statements of sourced facts and no opinions
 * 3) Does not apply - the paragraph does not contain any recognisable scandal mongering
 * 4) Does not apply - no evidence that any person involved in the project has written the words
 * 5) Does not apply - the paragraph contains only statements of bare facts with no puffery or PR spin

The paragraph IS sourced properly. The fact that one of the two sources is related is not an objection in this case; the only requirement for independent sources is when considering if a topic is sufficiently noteworthy to have an article on it, and nobody (other than The Banner) is suggesting the creation of such an article. Likewise discussion on the notability of The Circle is irrelevant; noteworthyness is required in an article, but not for a single paragraph in an article.

On this basis, I believe the template is misguided, and I will remove it. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I have removed the redlink, because I don't believe that The Circle is sufficiently noteworthy to merit an article, at least in its unbuilt condition, and whilst a redlink doesn't mandate an article, I'd prefer not to encourage other editors to create one. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * To my opinion, it is promo. I suggested a more neutral text "The Circle, a multi-use complex designed by by Japanese architect Riken Yamamoto, is currently under construction and planned for completion in 2018." but mr. Zurich00swiss insisted on the more promotional version "The Circle, a complex intended to include a medical center, a conference center, shops, restaurants, offices and hotels, is under construction opposite the Airport Centre. The complex was designed by Japanese architect Riken Yamamoto, is currently under construction and planned for completion in 2018." In my opinion, that are a lot of unnecessary details and, to my opinion, puffery. The Banner talk 15:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but firstly you are blaming the wrong guy. It wasn't Zurich00swiss who changed that text, it was I. The reason I did so (as I explained at the time) is because the words multi-user complex mean almost nothing. It begs the question what sort of users and what sort of complex which I endeavoured to answer by listing the planned uses, which is the only substantial difference between your wording and mine above. There is no promotional intent, and as I only listed uses rather users (eg. hotel rather than Hilton Hotel) I fail to see any promotional effect. Who exactly do you think the additional wording is promoting?. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@The Banner. To tell what the future use, purpose of this building is ( a medical center, a conference center, shops, restaurants, offices and hotels) is just an information. it is no promo. It even doesent say the name of the hotels or the medical center.. and even if it would say hotel xx and Hotel YY and the Medical center of the ZZ JSC ,XYZ Medical inc. it is not yet a promo. Its just an information what is located in this Building in 2018. FFA P-16 (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I know you think that every blurb, engine test and so on related to Swiss air traffic is notable. I have a more neutral view on that. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 17:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@ It is disturbing how often you blame things as "promo" or " unnecessary details" if its not in your interest, "include a medical center, a conference center, shops, restaurants, offices and hotels" is too much for you, but then all your "Michelin starred restaurants" are promo and of unnecessary details too.FFA P-16

@The Banner, you did not answer/ explain why or what at such a general information should be promotion. There is not a single name of a company named. To me it looks not very neutral everything you don't like or you don't understand you call promo. And if you work on aviatic topic you should at least have some knowleg.. FFA P-16 (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC) (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Aha, you have no serious arguments any more? <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 17:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@The Banner, This is a serous argument, why should this bee promo but your "Restaurand Guide" not? Please Explain why the listening up of the future use, purpose of this building is promo. Please don't understand this as attack, but I see no common sens in this argument about this building. FFA P-16 (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Suspended Routes
Me & Zurich00swiss are in disagreement about a suspended Egypt route. The suspension includes a reference, Zurich00swiss removed it, I reverted and said 'Unexplained removal of sourced route'. Zurich00swiss reverted and typed in caps. 'IT WAS ON FLIGHTRADAR 24 YESTERDAY.' The edit did not appear to be in good faith and I left a warning at User talk:Zurich00swiss. I have since reverted and have asked Zurich00swiss to talk here. Anyone can contribute and discuss their opinion on this issue. Thanks, - DragTails - 12:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * @DragTails http://www.flightradar24.com/reg/hb-ihz look here and https://booking.flyedelweiss.com/WKOnline/AirFareFamiliesFlexibleForward.do here.-- The  aviation   user . Zurich00swiss (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)