Talk:Daniel K. Inouye International Airport/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Daniel K. Inouye International Airport. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
picture?
Should we include a pictur of the wiki wiki bus? One has already been uploaded to wikipedia here:
And is in use on only one article. Considering the fact that the link between "wiki" and the "wiki-wiki bus" isn't as strong as the link between the wiki-wiki bus and the Honolulu International Airport, I say we put the picture here. The only problem is that i dont know where to put it in the article where it is both relevant and does not majorly affect the overall layout, so I leave it up to someone else more knowledgeable of the airport than I am to do it so that I dont mess up the article. --JoeBlowfromKokomo 01:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- If we're going to have a picture of a Wiki Wiki bus, my preference would be to have one of a bus itself rather than a sign. I'm not in HNL at the moment so I can't go take one and add it... -- Hawaiian717 15:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Just found one that's CC-BY-SA licensed on Flickr; I've uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons and added it to the article. -- Hawaiian717 16:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Wiki-wiki bus
In 1983 and 1984, I passed through Honolulu a few times, on the way to a work assignment on the island of Kauai. I remember the inter-terminal buses, older vehicles whose sign board read "Wiki-wiki," or "(goes) quickly." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.175.225.5 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC-7)
Pan Am accident?
The "Aviation Safety" database does not mention an accident of a Pan Am 747 on the date mentioned. It does, however, report a sabotage incident from earlier in 1982, when a Pan Am 747 inbound from Narita, Japan, landed safely after a bomb under a seat killed that passenger, punched a hole in the floor (not the hull), and damaged the overhead.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.175.225.5 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC-7)
I removed the Pan Am 747 disaster as I was also unable to verify it. If anyone wants to put that back in, please include a flight number. I will see if I can find info on the sabatoge that you have mentioned when I have a chance. Thomasdelbert 15:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- I just created a stub about the bombing. I verified several sources, and the flight number was Pan Am Flight 830. -- AirOdyssey (Talk) 04:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
HNL seaplane runways?
The FAA diagram for HNL shows 2 offshore "runways" for seaplanes in addition to the four terrestrial ones - 4W/22W, 3000' long and 150' wide, and 8W/26W, 5000' long and 300' wide. (These are, of course, parallel to the main runways.) Are these still in use, and if so, should the article note them?
Dan 17:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Seaplanes are seen around Oahu from time to time. As the FAA diagram still shows them, I feel they should be in the article, so I added a mention of them. -- Hawaiian717 23:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey, they're legit runways -Nweinthal
go!
204.210.121.34 added go! to the list of airlines in the Interisland Terminal, which I've removed. They haven't signed a lease yet, and their website states their location as the Commuter Terminal, however the HNL map on their site shows them in Hawaiian's gate area in the Interisland Terminal [1]. Until we get something definite, I think we should leave them out. -- Hawaiian717 18:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Per [2], I've added go! to the Commuter Terminal -- Hawaiian717 16:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Passenger Traffic
How many passengers does it handle? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BoricuaPR (talk • contribs) 20:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC-8)
Over 20,000,000 interisland, domestic, and international passengers passed through HNL in 2005. This figure peaked in 1996, when 24,326,737 passengers passed through HNL.
Source: http://www.hawaii.gov/dot/airports/publications/cysmallone.pdf
If you're looking for a total capacity per year - I don't have this information yet.
Accidents section
I condensed the section about the incidents and accidents at HNL. On most airport articles, this is a very compact page, shortly describing the article, and pointing to a main link to provide more details. I also added Pan Am Flight 830, as mentioned above. -- AirOdyssey (Talk) 04:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Terminal section
Section was rearranged by lobby number order and by terminal (since Lobby 1 is the commuter terminal, it was listed first). The new look gives this section a less cluttered feel and provides a general description of how airline check-in counters are grouped at this particular airport.
Omni International (OY)
I've been monitoring Honolulu's Flight Information Display System for the past two days. It seems that Omni has service from Honolulu to Fukuoka, Japan. The destination section has been updated to reflect this. Not sure if this service is temporary or regular. Updates to occur as information changes.
Picture of PHNL Control Tower
Isn't PHNL's control tower located in the center of field (as per the aiport diagram: PHNL Airport Diagram? I believe the building pictured houses the airport beacon but I'm unsure what types of operations if any are held there.
-Ben —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benjaminct (talk • contribs) 20:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC).
HNL Garden Area
Surely one of the most distinctive parts of the HNL airport is the open garden area. No mention is made of the garden area (and in fact, judging by how seldom people venture to the garden, I would say that most people don't know that they are allowed to visit and enjoy the garden), nor is any mention made of the open-air walkways throughout the airport. Are these not worthy of mention? Artvarck (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Jetstar Flight Schedule
I took out Melbourne as a destination, as this is currently operated only as a through flight with a stop in Sydney. Here's the reference [3]. I think destinations should be limited to nonstop destinations. If you start including connecting destinations, this article will get very messy. Alenag25 (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Alenag25
- While I'd be inclined to agree that only nonstop destinations should be included, WP:AIRPORT guidelines state that direct flights that continue to another city with the same flight number should be included so I've reverted your change. If you want to change the guideline, you'll have to bring it up at the project's talk page. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Good point. I stand corrected. 76.172.88.8 (talk) 08:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Alenag25
Aeromexico
Anonymous editors keep adding Aeromexico as serving HNL from Mexico City effective September 2008, without providing a source. A Google News search turns up nothing, and I don't see anything on the airline's web site about it. To anyone who is tempted to add this again, please provide a source for this planned service along with the plan that the airline will use Lobby 4 at HNL. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
New picture request
There should be an air traffic control tower with the words "Honolulu International Airport" - please get a photo of that and use it in the lead. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Why? The current photo is excellent, the tower is in the left side of the image, and a free image of the tower on flickr[4] is not that great. If you are saying that you want to add this image in addition to the current one, then I would agree. But, I would not replace it. Viriditas (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Viriditas, thank you for finding this image. I would take what we have now and keep it on this page, but I would like for it would to moved to another location in the article. Lemme upload this image here and I will add it to the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- I found an almost identical photo to the one Viriditas found, but with full daylight rather than during twilight: [5]. Is this along the lines of what you're looking for? -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 01:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- I prefer the current image. I don't see any uniformity in airport articles regarding lead images. If someone wants to add a tower photo to the article, great, but leave the current image in the lead. Viriditas (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, for now I will put the new Honolulu Airport image somewhere else - I do think, as it is visually identifiable as Honolulu Airport, it should be in the lead. But I will start a discussion about it and see where it goes. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree, but I'm genuinely curious why you think the control tower of any major airport is the most important "visually identifiable" item. I recommend reading the airport article. The current image of the lead captures just about every major aspect of the airport, and is ideal. As an architectural development, airports are best represented by their integration into the urban landscape. An image of the control tower doesn't even scratch the surface. Look at the lead image for San Francisco International Airport. The (newer) international terminal represents the focal point of the design. Look at Washington Dulles International Airport. It's much more than just the control tower. Unless the control tower is unique or dual-use (think LAX) I think having a close-up of a control tower with the name of the airport in view is really missing the whole point of having an image. Viriditas (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- The lead image for San Francisco International Airport says "San Francisco International," so I agree with using that image. Anyway, the thing about the lead we have now is that, under a low resolution the foliage makes things a bit unclear. We see some aircraft tails as like they are sharks in the ocean. While I understand that a control tower is not the only aspect of the airport, the marking identifying the airport as Honolulu International plus the big "Aloha" makes the image more visually appealing. I think airports are best represented by different features depending on the layout and the placement of the welcome signs. Single-terminal airports like William P. Hobby Airport have their signs on terminal buildings while many multi-terminal airports like George Bush Intercontinental Airport have signs elsewhere. Anyway, the new Aloha image is clear, displays well at a low resolution, is visually identifiable as HNL, and would be expected by a reader of the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, the closeup is easier to see in the infobox, and I like the aloha. The farther out picture is good too, but it's busy, there's not a single item to focus on in the image, and the components are small and hard to see. I think that one would be good lower down in the article, though. (This was brought to my attention over IRC). delldot ∇. 06:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Canvassing aside, I disagree. Most readers would expect to see an image of the airport integerated into the urban landscape; they would not be looking for or informed in any way by a close-up of a control tower. I can prove that is true merely by obtaining an official, promotional image of any airport from the appropriate authorities. There is almost no information conveyed in a close-up of X control tower with the words "X Airport". This would be like adding photos of hotel signs to lead sections of hotel articles, or restaurant signs to lead sections of eating establishments; it conveys no information. I think it is safe to say that the average reader expects to see the terminal they will be entering, and the architectural layout of the airport. The control tower is going to be the last thing on their mind. With that said, the ideal image will have as many major elements in the photograph as possible. But a close-up of a sign and just the control tower in the lead? That is really not helpful to anyone. I don't know who started this "must have a sign to be visually identifiable" thing, but it's just silly. The best images do not have signs, nor would they ever need them. Viriditas (talk) 06:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Viriditas, hotel signs are typically placed on the buildings themselves, so it is easy to have a photo that shows the hotel structure and shows a sign. Anyway, when you use a lead image, you want to have an image that is easy to focus on using the reduced image size. Now, regarding official promotional images, which promotional images are you referring to? Who are the audiences of these promotional images? In addition, Wikipedia operates for Wikipedia's sake, so Wikipedia editors may have different ideas regarding which images best describe the subjects. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- There are lots of hotels in Hawaii where the main sign is nowhere near the hotel, so I disagree. There are of course, secondary signs placed closer to or directly on the property, but even then, photographs capturing the sign and the hotel are close to useless. Looking at a restaurant like The French Laundry, the sign in the lower right-hand side is neither large enough to be considered a focal point, nor important. Now, imagine if you had a guideline that suggested aiming at the sign. You would not only miss out on the entire image, but on the entire setting. Lead images should draw the reader in, and close-up photos of the control tower don't do that. More importantly, the control tower is only one aspect of an airport so choosing that single element for the lead image is an extremely narrow choice. Ideally, the lead image for an airport will include an airfield, a control tower, the terminal, and grounds. Choosing just one of these for the image is not ideal. The current lead image includes all four. Airports are best described by the sum of their parts. Viriditas (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Viriditas, hotel signs are typically placed on the buildings themselves, so it is easy to have a photo that shows the hotel structure and shows a sign. Anyway, when you use a lead image, you want to have an image that is easy to focus on using the reduced image size. Now, regarding official promotional images, which promotional images are you referring to? Who are the audiences of these promotional images? In addition, Wikipedia operates for Wikipedia's sake, so Wikipedia editors may have different ideas regarding which images best describe the subjects. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Canvassing aside, I disagree. Most readers would expect to see an image of the airport integerated into the urban landscape; they would not be looking for or informed in any way by a close-up of a control tower. I can prove that is true merely by obtaining an official, promotional image of any airport from the appropriate authorities. There is almost no information conveyed in a close-up of X control tower with the words "X Airport". This would be like adding photos of hotel signs to lead sections of hotel articles, or restaurant signs to lead sections of eating establishments; it conveys no information. I think it is safe to say that the average reader expects to see the terminal they will be entering, and the architectural layout of the airport. The control tower is going to be the last thing on their mind. With that said, the ideal image will have as many major elements in the photograph as possible. But a close-up of a sign and just the control tower in the lead? That is really not helpful to anyone. I don't know who started this "must have a sign to be visually identifiable" thing, but it's just silly. The best images do not have signs, nor would they ever need them. Viriditas (talk) 06:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, the closeup is easier to see in the infobox, and I like the aloha. The farther out picture is good too, but it's busy, there's not a single item to focus on in the image, and the components are small and hard to see. I think that one would be good lower down in the article, though. (This was brought to my attention over IRC). delldot ∇. 06:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- The lead image for San Francisco International Airport says "San Francisco International," so I agree with using that image. Anyway, the thing about the lead we have now is that, under a low resolution the foliage makes things a bit unclear. We see some aircraft tails as like they are sharks in the ocean. While I understand that a control tower is not the only aspect of the airport, the marking identifying the airport as Honolulu International plus the big "Aloha" makes the image more visually appealing. I think airports are best represented by different features depending on the layout and the placement of the welcome signs. Single-terminal airports like William P. Hobby Airport have their signs on terminal buildings while many multi-terminal airports like George Bush Intercontinental Airport have signs elsewhere. Anyway, the new Aloha image is clear, displays well at a low resolution, is visually identifiable as HNL, and would be expected by a reader of the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree, but I'm genuinely curious why you think the control tower of any major airport is the most important "visually identifiable" item. I recommend reading the airport article. The current image of the lead captures just about every major aspect of the airport, and is ideal. As an architectural development, airports are best represented by their integration into the urban landscape. An image of the control tower doesn't even scratch the surface. Look at the lead image for San Francisco International Airport. The (newer) international terminal represents the focal point of the design. Look at Washington Dulles International Airport. It's much more than just the control tower. Unless the control tower is unique or dual-use (think LAX) I think having a close-up of a control tower with the name of the airport in view is really missing the whole point of having an image. Viriditas (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, for now I will put the new Honolulu Airport image somewhere else - I do think, as it is visually identifiable as Honolulu Airport, it should be in the lead. But I will start a discussion about it and see where it goes. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- I prefer the current image. I don't see any uniformity in airport articles regarding lead images. If someone wants to add a tower photo to the article, great, but leave the current image in the lead. Viriditas (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- With the French laundry I would include both the sign that indicates the place and the building itself, but I'm unsure which one would go in the lead in this case. I feel that in Honolulu's case the airport control tower picture is the best lead image. Anyhow, would you like for me to have a Request for comment for this? WhisperToMe (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, because I can already predict the result with the canvassing above. I'm on record opposing the rationale for the image, and that's good enough for me. I think the French Laundry example is clear, and I have no idea why you would include a close-up of the sign when it clearly is not important. Can you explain why you think it is important to include a close-up of a sign and to avoid representing the subject in a photograph? Is this your personal belief or are you basing it on something solid? I'm just not following your reasoning, and I think it defeats the entire purpose of a photograph. Viriditas (talk) 08:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Viriditas, Wikipedia works by consensus. If consensus says that you use the new photo in the lead, Wikipedia does that. If you can predict the result of a Request for comment as not in favor of your idea, it is best to just go ahead and change the picture to the new one. "and I have no idea why you would include a close-up of the sign when it clearly is not important." - because I believe it is important and that it is a better lead image, and because the other poster agreed. "Can you explain why you think it is important to include a close-up of a sign and to avoid representing the subject in a photograph?" I say the subject is well-represented.
- If the two of us cannot get to a consensus alone, RFC is
thea way to go. We could also do Wikipedia:Third opinion. Either way, we have to "canvass" for outside help. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)- With respect for all the good work you do, I really don't think you are interested in reaching a consensus. I don't canvass IRC backchannels for opinions, so there is no way I can compete with a kangaroo RFC. There is and there never has been anyone preventing you from editing the article and making the change you desire, so I encourage you to do what you want. I'm not here to waste time promoting my POV. I'm here only to observe that the entire purpose of using photographs to illustrate the topic has been defeated. I still haven't received an adequate answer about why a close-up of a sign is valid. It would never be acceptable in any professional publication or photography contest, so why would we even entertain the ridiculous idea here? I have no interest in participating in a kangaroo RFC, so do what you like. Viriditas (talk) 08:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Viriditas: An RFC does not take place over IRC - It takes place over Wikipedia. I usually do IRC first as a more casual method before going onto Wikipedia to start an RFC. There are okay ways to canvass, and they are written here: Wikipedia:Canvassing. You said: "so there is no way I can compete with a kangaroo RFC." - An RFC cannot be a "kangaroo" court - Everyone coming in has a third or a fourth opinion; nobody pre-judges the situation. You said: "There is and there never has been anyone preventing you from editing the article and making the change you desire" - Wikipedia:Edit warring is frowned upon here, so it is best to get a result via discussion first. Anyhow, we all disagree from time to time, but we all wish to improve Wikipedia. Consensus is working together to find a good solution or to ask for outside help to see what the community believes is the best. Maybe someday a person could find a picture even better than the first two and that could become the lead. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm taking this page off my watchlist because it doesn't seem like you are able to understand my talk page messages. I'm clear on how Wikipedia and RFC works, and I'm very clear on how IRC works (I've been using it before you were born). Please save your explanations for someone who needs them. Viriditas (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- That's what consensus is. Garden. 09:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Nope. Pre-selecting editors/admins from an off-wiki, IRC backchannel is called canvassing and prevents true consensus from emerging. This is my last post on the subject. Viriditas (talk) 09:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Canvassing is allowed under certain circumstances. On IRC I stated the problem, and I let other people decide whether they prefer A or B. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- You should have opened a public RFC instead of canvassing on an off-wiki backchannel. It doesn't matter, because I've taken this article off of my watchlist. Viriditas (talk) 09:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Canvassing is allowed under certain circumstances. On IRC I stated the problem, and I let other people decide whether they prefer A or B. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Nope. Pre-selecting editors/admins from an off-wiki, IRC backchannel is called canvassing and prevents true consensus from emerging. This is my last post on the subject. Viriditas (talk) 09:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Viriditas: An RFC does not take place over IRC - It takes place over Wikipedia. I usually do IRC first as a more casual method before going onto Wikipedia to start an RFC. There are okay ways to canvass, and they are written here: Wikipedia:Canvassing. You said: "so there is no way I can compete with a kangaroo RFC." - An RFC cannot be a "kangaroo" court - Everyone coming in has a third or a fourth opinion; nobody pre-judges the situation. You said: "There is and there never has been anyone preventing you from editing the article and making the change you desire" - Wikipedia:Edit warring is frowned upon here, so it is best to get a result via discussion first. Anyhow, we all disagree from time to time, but we all wish to improve Wikipedia. Consensus is working together to find a good solution or to ask for outside help to see what the community believes is the best. Maybe someday a person could find a picture even better than the first two and that could become the lead. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- With respect for all the good work you do, I really don't think you are interested in reaching a consensus. I don't canvass IRC backchannels for opinions, so there is no way I can compete with a kangaroo RFC. There is and there never has been anyone preventing you from editing the article and making the change you desire, so I encourage you to do what you want. I'm not here to waste time promoting my POV. I'm here only to observe that the entire purpose of using photographs to illustrate the topic has been defeated. I still haven't received an adequate answer about why a close-up of a sign is valid. It would never be acceptable in any professional publication or photography contest, so why would we even entertain the ridiculous idea here? I have no interest in participating in a kangaroo RFC, so do what you like. Viriditas (talk) 08:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- If the two of us cannot get to a consensus alone, RFC is
- Viriditas, Wikipedia works by consensus. If consensus says that you use the new photo in the lead, Wikipedia does that. If you can predict the result of a Request for comment as not in favor of your idea, it is best to just go ahead and change the picture to the new one. "and I have no idea why you would include a close-up of the sign when it clearly is not important." - because I believe it is important and that it is a better lead image, and because the other poster agreed. "Can you explain why you think it is important to include a close-up of a sign and to avoid representing the subject in a photograph?" I say the subject is well-represented.
- No, because I can already predict the result with the canvassing above. I'm on record opposing the rationale for the image, and that's good enough for me. I think the French Laundry example is clear, and I have no idea why you would include a close-up of the sign when it clearly is not important. Can you explain why you think it is important to include a close-up of a sign and to avoid representing the subject in a photograph? Is this your personal belief or are you basing it on something solid? I'm just not following your reasoning, and I think it defeats the entire purpose of a photograph. Viriditas (talk) 08:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
My opinion is pretty split here. On the one hand, the suggested replacement is very good to show the airport's name in more detail and is also quite a nice picture. However, the current image is good to show the entire airport as a whole. So, pretty split. Garden. 09:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Viritidas, all RFCs are public; if you wanted one, you could have asked for one or filed one. Also going on IRC and talking on #wikipedia-en is not inappropriately canvassing as all people are welcome to join and see the channel, and I do not know in advance what people on that channel think. Listen, I do not feel that delisting an article from a watchlist because other users prefer a different image in the lead will help Wikipedia. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Also I decided to immediately seek further input upon realizing that a continuing one on one would have been fruitless; both sides (me and Viritidas) were not going to get consensus alone. I needed further input. Going on IRC and canvassing appropriately (NPOV wording to see what other people prefer) are legitimate actions. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Honolulu Airport Interactive Terminal Map
Could you please add a link to the interactive hnl map at the end of the article in the reference section
www.honoluluairport.org/info/maps
Julia.fulia (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- No. That is not a website provided by the airport. HkCaGu (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Too bad. It could have been useful for people even though it's not an official website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia.fulia (talk • contribs) 23:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Julia.fulia (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Do we really want something that tells people where to look for Northwest Airlines? HkCaGu (talk) 23:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
China Eastern
Since China Eastern launched services here August 9, does anyone know which lobby the airline is located? I went to the airport's official website and it does not have China Eastern being assigned a lobby. If anyone knows which lobby MU is located, plesae add. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 04:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Stale?
A lot of the text in the article references STALE info and doesn't update with latest info and cite references. I just changed main terminal to reflect International Arrivals Corridor has BEEN open for some time... The article text stated "In 2007..." "..was approved" and NEVER updated to state it's open. I would rather the article text is TRIMMED back to stuff that can be easily maintained and CURRENT and relevant then just the mess it is now.. Too much info that goes VERY stale? Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.84.27 (talk) 19:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
airport link broken
for some reason, the website for the airport is down, and therefore the link is broken, someone with the time ti do so should remove it until the airport website is back up. 216.67.75.25 (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- The website is currently up. For a temporary site outage there's no reason to remove a link. We would only change it if the site itself was moved to a different address. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 22:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
DESTINATION MAP
Why are only int'l destinations shown on the destination map? What, American cities are chopped liver? There seems to be no justification for the selective map currently included. (And the title of the map is Air routes from HNL. What, HNL to LAX is not an air route?) Can't anybody redo the map to show ALL direct flights from HNL similar to destination maps on other airport articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.228.117 (talk) 11:35, 25 October 2012
- You're whining about the file name? The caption under the map as well as the description of the image on the image page both clearly state that it's a map of international destinations. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- OK, you're missing the point. Maybe I muddled the issue with the title comment. Please reread the first and last sentences and respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.228.117 (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2012
- I didn't make the map nor add it, so I can't justify why it only shows international destinations. I'm not sure I have appropriate software to create a new one that includes domestic and international destinations. Also, please sign your posts on talk pages. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- OK, you're missing the point. Maybe I muddled the issue with the title comment. Please reread the first and last sentences and respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.228.117 (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2012
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Honolulu 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080218201733/http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/MapItDrawServlet?geo_id=16000US1517000&_bucket_id=50&tree_id=420&context=saff&_lang=en&_sse=on to http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/MapItDrawServlet?geo_id=16000US1517000&_bucket_id=50&tree_id=420&context=saff&_lang=en&_sse=on
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2009-10-12-hainan-air-honolulu_N.htm
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) 19:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Airport new name
Can anyone provide a source saying the airport has been renamed? Couldn't find any news releases saying that the airport has been renamed nor the FAA site doesn't mention such. Airport website still has the old name for the airport. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
There hasn't been anything public saying the airport has been renamed (which I noted in my edit), but the source I provided was an official FAA chart used by pilots (I am one), and can confirm that chart has been updated as of the 27 April chart cycle.
Here is a link to the FAA's search page:
The FAA's chart office, at a minimum, have made this change. Based on what info, I'm not clear, but all official FAA charts have made the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.185.168 (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- Local TV station KHON covered it: http://khon2.com/2017/04/28/honolulu-airport-renamed-after-late-sen-daniel-inouye/ Haven't found any others yet, but I imagine other media outlets will follow. This was the result of a resolution from the Legislature, passed last year: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/Archives/measure_indiv_Archives.aspx?billtype=HCR&billnumber=88&year=2016. KeithH (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Requested move 30 April 2017
- 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Moved.Unanimous concensus.(non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 13:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Honolulu International Airport → Daniel K. Inouye International Airport – Airport official renamed as per http://khon2.com/2017/04/28/honolulu-airport-renamed-after-late-sen-daniel-inouye/ and the airport's website also reflects the new name. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 03:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support in principle but would like to wait. I was thinking about doing this move myself but changed my mind after reading WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES. Right now only KHON has covered the name change per Google News search on "daniel inouye airport"; I'd like to see another Hawaii-based media outlet (like the Honolulu Star-Advertiser) or national media source use the name or cover the name change story before pulling the trigger. Hopefully it won't be too long. KeithH (talk) 05:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- And here's a link from Hawaii News Now (KHNL/KGMB/KFVE): [6]. Full support. KeithH (talk) 10:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support, per above and nom, and per other airports with name changes to honor individuals and accomplishments. Randy Kryn 14:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support It is a flaw of current WP:COMMONNAME which do not take into account the name change of companies or organizations. Unless current article title is not an official name but a different common name, the article title should be moved to a new official name immediately. Otherwise, change of the article title deffers without any merit.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Support—National news has picked up the name change: NBC News: Hawaii Renames Honolulu International Airport to Honor Late Sen. Daniel Inouye VC 17:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Daniel K. Inouye 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202230748/http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20100313/BUSINESS03/3130311?source=rss_business to http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20100313/BUSINESS03/3130311?source=rss_business
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120912124655/http://www.history.navy.mil/avh-1910/Prelim.pdf to http://www.history.navy.mil/avh-1910/PRELIM.PDF
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040510155700/http://www2.hickam.af.mil/ to http://www2.hickam.af.mil/
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) 06:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Daniel K. Inouye 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080626142806/http://www6.hawaii.gov/dot/airports/publications/cysmallone.pdf to http://www6.hawaii.gov/dot/airports/publications/cysmallone.pdf
- Added archive https://archive.is/20140122234821/http://www.kpua.net/news.php?id=28831 to http://www.kpua.net/news.php?id=28831
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) 01:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Explosion in 1963
I found this source in Vietnamese news claiming that a 707 was blown up by a bomb planted by Vietnamese resistance fighters in 1963, at Honolulu Airport, but I have had trouble finding any information from non-Vietnamese sources that mention this. Has anyone got an idea of where I might be able to verify this?--Senor Freebie (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)