Talk:Toledo Express Airport

Unconstructive Edits

This is to open discussion on edits that are deemed needed by some users, but are essentially just delete specific information and data from the article without justification. If something needs to be cleaned up some or re-worded, please discuss here so an agreement can be made on how to relay the information. Dfw79 (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with Mr. Zukas' aggressive reversion tactics, and would rarely if ever agree with deleting actual information or details, BUT I do agree with him that the majority of the simplifications to the verbiage in this article are improvements. I'd suggest Dfw79 re-insert any information that was lost and leave the wording simplifications alone. BillHart93 (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I can definitely appreciate someone wanting to constructively clean up the language, but it seems Mr. Zukas is definitely just going through not only this article, but several airports deleting large chunks of text for what he considers too wordy. I definitely want to avoid crossing completely over the 3RR rule by going back and editing the article again before admins have a chance to review. Looking at the various items he's removed:

• Removing "joint civil-military" airport wording, every airport article with joint operations is called this except on articles he's changed.
• Hacking the roles of the airport really doesn't make any sense and doesn't allow the article flow properly.
• Removing the actual pax numbers from the article makes no sense whatsoever as those are hard numbers that should be included. If he has a suggestion on how to better so this, then he needs to share.
• Changing the information on BX Solutions is completely incorrect. It is NOT an "air cargo hub" as they only do ground shipments through the former BAX facility. So that is an example of an edit that should not have happened and Mr. Zukas needs to research TOL more if he wants to contribute.

The remaining edits seem acceptable but still needs some better wording to make the article flow a bit better and not be so choppy. I'll take another pass through the changes and clean things up a bit. If Mr. Zukas would like to comment on the bullet points above on how to reach an acceptable solution then I am definitely all for that. Dfw79 (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Starting with the first paragraph-- here's the way Dfw79 likes it:

"Toledo Express Airport (IATA: TOL, ICAO: KTOL, FAA LID: TOL) is a joint civil-military airport located in the townships of Swanton and Monclova situated 10 miles (16 km) to the west of the city of Toledo in Western Lucas County, Ohio, United States. The airport was opened in 1955 as a replacement to then Toledo Municipal Airport located to the southeast of Toledo. TOL is located near the crossing of State Route 2 and Interstate 80/90 (Ohio Turnpike Exit 52)."

After we delete some useless stuff we have

"Toledo Express Airport (IATA: TOL, ICAO: KTOL, FAA LID: TOL) is a civil-military airport in Swanton and Monclova townships 10 miles (16 km) west of Toledo in western Lucas County, Ohio, United States. The airport opened in 1955 as a replacement for then Toledo Municipal Airport southeast of Toledo. TOL is near the crossing of State Route 2 and Interstate 80/90 (Ohio Turnpike Exit 52)."

Dfw79 thinks that doesn't flow well, or something. Anyone else see any reason to prefer his version? Tim Zukas (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

First part. "Joint civil-military" is the currently accepted phrasing across all airport articles on Wikipedia. You are the only one that is attempting to change that which is creating an unneeded conflict. Other than that, it appears you have modified your revision to where it is acceptable now. Dfw79 (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

You meant to say "Lots of Wikipedia airport articles say joint civil-military instead of civil-military, which means the same thing but doesn't flow as well." You like to think it is the "accepted" term since you have used it 341,856 times and no one has gotten around to editing most of those articles. As always, it's up to other editors to decide: are Dfw79's extra words useless or not? Tim Zukas (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is being directed as "my extra words" as the wording has been around on this article since 2009, and no - I did not originate it. Dfw79 (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Next paragraph-- his version:

"The airport's main role includes serving commercial passenger, cargo and general aviation aircraft the airport as well as being a base for the Ohio Air National Guard's 180th Fighter Wing with F-16 Fighting Falcon aircraft. The airport is also a considered secondary airport for Detroit, Michigan and the surrounding northwest Ohio and southeast Michigan region. It is frequently used as the primary diversion point for arriving traffic to Detroit Metro Airport as well as other regional hubs. The airport is operated by the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority on a lease agreement from the City of Toledo."

Now we delete the useless generalities-- the reader doesn't need to be told that airports handle passengers and cargo and general aviation. And more useless verbiage, of course.

"The airport is a base for the Ohio Air National Guard's 180th Fighter Wing with F-16 Fighting Falcons; it is frequently used as a diversion by aircraft arriving Detroit Metro Airport and other hubs. The airport is operated by the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority on a lease agreement from the city."

So it goes. Anyone who's interested can compare the two versions and wonder at Dfw79's fondness for unneeded words, but you won't find any useful info missing from the short version. (He gave the passenger count for 2012, and said it was 0.9% less than 2011, then he gave the passenger count for 2011. Who needs the latter when you've got the former?) Tim Zukas (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Keeping focused on making sure the article is relaying the appropriate information and disregarding the unacceptable attitude, let's look at this part. I disagree it is "useless verbiage" to review the primary roles of the facility. Perhaps rewording it to something like: "In addition to its primary general and commercial aviation roles, the airport also serves as a base for the...180th." Next part TOL is considered a secondary airport for the Detroit market, much like FNT, so there is no reason to delete that at all.

As always, it's up to other editors to decide: does the reader need to be told the airport handles passengers, and cargo, and general aviation? If it failed to handle passengers, or cargo, or GA, that would be worth a sentence. If it's the same as every other large civil airport, then give the reader a break and don't waste his time with such platitudes.

"TOL is considered a secondary airport for the Detroit market"

(What would Wikipedia editors do without the passive voice?)

Toledo has scheduled airline flights, and it's within 100 or 200 or 500 miles of Detroit, so anyone can call it a secondary airport for "the Detroit market". The reader knows that, and he knows that none of us knows who else "considers" it a secondary airport for Detroit. If in a survey of Toledo passengers it turned out that 2% of them live closer to DTW than to TOL, that's worth mentioning. But looks like there's been no survey, and the writer knows nothing about it, and the reader would be grateful if we didn't waste his time with informationless platitudes. Tim Zukas (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Toledo is actually within 50 miles of Detroit Metro and both share a catchment area. As you can tell from details in the article about the share of passengers in the Toledo market that use Detroit, it is quite obvious they serve the same area. We could go a bit more descriptive explaining that the Toledo market area extends into the southern half of the Detroit metro area, which there is documentation to support (see the True Market Study section of the article). Dfw79 (talk) 14:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

"it is quite obvious they serve the same area."

That's the point, of course. The reader cringes when you inflict such obviousness on him. Once the article tells him where TOL is he doesn't need your uninformed opinion of how secondary it is. (He sure doesn't need your opinion of how secondary it's considered to be.) Tim Zukas (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

For the next part, having specific passenger numbers is perfectly acceptable. Some may want the exact passenger count if they are researching it and the percentage isn't going to help them. As I continue to expand the article, the plan is to put in a table to show past passenger totals per year which would replace this section at that point. Until then, it is best to leave it as is.

It is understandable that different people have different preferences on wording, but we need to make sure we maintain some form of continuity with the other airport articles and not delete content just because it may be too wordy in one person's opinion. This article still has some way to go to meet the higher standards for the Aviation and Airport articles, but it is getting there from where it was a year ago. Dfw79 (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

"we need to make sure we maintain some form of continuity with the other airport articles"

If one article is bad, they should all be bad-- otherwise we have a discontinuity. Think the reader agrees with that? Tim Zukas (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

DRN for this article was opened at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Toledo_Express_Airport. With that, solutions were drafted with feedback provided by multiple authors on how to clean up the wording of this article. Those solutions have been added to this article now and any future discussion of modifying them should take place here before implementing any changes. Dfw79 (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)