Talk:Cork Airport

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cork Airport article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Aviation: Airports

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the airport project.

This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Ireland Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in Hiberno-English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Copyvios

Had to revert a bunch of stuff this morning. Copied wholesale from [1] - Pete C ^✍ 07:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ground transportation

The reverting back and forth about whether some or all airports are deemed to have a rail connection is getting annoying. Personally I think the answer is that none do, since Farranfore Station serves the village, not the airport. However, rather than people getting bogged down in it, best to rewrite removing the reference.

As for taxis - as I myself was reminded recently Wikipedia is not a travel guide so the price of taxis is not necessary to include. Dowlingm 18:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous user continues to add information regarding the price of taxis, fares being "reasonably priced and negotiable" and listing car rental firms and directions to them from the terminal building. None of this information is of encyclopedic relevance, and much of it will change from time to time, so it is not suitable for this article. As stated above Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Please refrain from adding this information as it will be removed. SempreVolando (talk) 13:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This information is of great relevance to anyone viewing this page in preparation for a visit to cork airport. The information is accurate and up to date, which means it is of encyclopedic relevance.Please stop deleting my contrabutions as this article nor wikipedia belongs to you.

And nor does it to you. There is no need to be so hostile. The information is clearly not of encyclopedic relevance, once again Wikipedia is not a travel guide. SempreVolando (talk) 13:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait and come to consensus on the topic with other users. Please do not add the content again until we have come to agreement on what should / should not appear here with other editors. SempreVolando (talk) 14:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Runway

Someone has changed 17/35 from asphalt to concrete. I understood it to be asphalt, but am not confident enough in my understanding to change it back. Any ideas? Irlchrism 11:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

changed to asphalt again per Dublin Airport Authority website Dowlingm 16:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

definitely looks like asphalt from the airplane window (i worked at an asphalt mill)

Destinations

An anonymous editor has changed the destinations at Cork and Waterford airports to include the country of destination beside each. Since the vast majority of such airports are wikied I feel this is excessive and bloats the article. What do others think? Dowlingm 20:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the Cork one - although not the Waterford one. I'm a bit surprised I wasn't automatically ogged in. I used a format I'd seen used at other airports (e.g. Warsaw). The main purpose was to provide separate links to the town served and the airport by including the airport code too. If anyone thinks it's overkill, I won't be grieviously offended if it's removed :-) Irlchrism 15:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted this back to the standard format, as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports. Thanks/wangi 16:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a similar but seperate matter... should we include destinations for charter flights? Ablaze 18:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French

I've created a French stub for the airport. It's basically a traslation of the first paragraph with an onfobox. If anyone wants to take a look and up date, the link is Aéroport international de Cork Irlchrism 10:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Busiest Airports

The official Irish Government authority for Dublin, Shannon and Cork airports is the Dublin Airport Authority. The official website is www.dublinairportauthority.com/media-centre/annual-report/2005. Page 76 of the annual report shows passenger total passenger traffic for 2005 as Dublin 18,450,439, Shannon 3,302,424 and Cork 2,729,906. This means Dublin is 1st, Shannon is 2nd and Cork is 3rd busiest airport in the Republic of Ireland.BIARRITZ 20:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But as is stated below, the Shannon figure includes passengers who never leave the aircraft. Shannon's figure is lower if these passengers aren't included. Should someone travelling from Dublin to Boston be included in Shannon's figures if they never leave the plane?57.80.136.6 12:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is cork irelands 2nd or 3rd busiest airport? Shannon article states its the 4th busiest. Belfast international is also listed below as an airport of ireland. Ablaze 11:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on your definition of Ireland and whether you count transit passengers who don't leave the aircraft at Shannon. Any idea how these should be treated?Irlchrism 09:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to add this statement from the Shannon website to inform further "Well over half a million passengers who travel through Shannon do so as transit passengers, breaking their journey at Shannon while traveling between Europe and North America.".Irlchrism 10:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to use primary sources and reference any claim. Belfast is Northern Ireland, and part of the UK so should not be counted as a Republic of Ireland airport. What is the Irish equivalent of the CAA - do they publish statistics? Because if you don't do this it's original research... Thanks/wangi 10:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish Aviation Authority don't publish statistics in the manner the CAA do. However, the claim can be backed up using data obtained from the airports themselves. On the Cork Airport Website Figures Page, it states that the number who used Cork Airport was in excess of 2.729 million passengers. On the equivalent page for Shannon, we can see that the total number less transit passengers is 2,627,583. Irlchrism 18:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2008 figures are out for both airports. Cork had 3.25 million (http://www.corkairport.com/business/012009.html). Shannon had 3.1 million (http://www.examiner.ie/irishexaminer/pages/story.aspx-qqqg=ireland-qqqm=ireland-qqqa=ireland-qqqid=82469-qqqx=1.asp - This URL is prone to change after a week due to archiving). So, it looks like we can now put this issue to bed 195.73.119.90 (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Main European hub"

I realise that Cork is nominally a Ryanair "base" but is it really accurate to say "It acts as a main European hub for both Ryanair and Aer Lingus"? From Cork Ryanair serves only Dublin, Liverpool, Gatwick and Stansted. Cork appears to be by far the smallest of Ryanair's official "bases" in Europe and to call it a "main European hub" for the airline seems a bit of a stretch. Ecozeppelin 10:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In absence of comments, have deleted reference to "main European hub." Ecozeppelin 10:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Terminal

Just a question, what happened to the old terminal when the new one was opened? Jvlm.123 19:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been mothballed. It is supposed to become the airport offices, but there have been suggestions that it could be reopened as a terminal for Low Cost airlines. A portion of the baggage handling area may be demolished to increase apron space Irlchrism 11:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rory Gallagher Airport

This seems to be associated with a campaign to have the airport's name changed. Is it worth including? Irlchrism 11:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lanzarote Airport

I've noticed that Lanzarote Airport is often referred to on this page as Arrecife in the destinations section, specifically with regard to Aer Lingus's destinations. I've reverted it back to Lanzarote because that is the name of the airport on Wikipedia, on Aer Lingus's website, Cork Airport's website, Lanzarote Airport's website and on the departure screens in Cork Airport. Clearly it's more commonly referred to as Lanzarote. Any particular reasons this keeps being reverted to Arrecife on this page? Dennisc24 (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kavs8 reverted the name of Lanzarote in the destinations section to Arrecife. I've changed it back to Lanzarote. If anyone can give significant justification to it being Arrecife with the above points in mind, I'm sure Arrecife will be fine. Until then, Lanzarote should stay. Dennisc24 (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be because Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content#Body #5 says to use the city name but some people feel that the name of the airport should be used. There was some relevant discussion of this at Talk:Cardiff Airport#Airport Name Changes. I think that for smaller islands like Lanzarote the most common/best know name should apply. So if the town of Saint Helier is better known than the island of Jersey then go with that. However, Jersey is probably the better known of the two and that should be used but it's not as the name of the airport but as the name of the island.

Recent news section

Is this section really necessary?? It basically just seems to cover anything that is already covered in the destinations section, or else mentions terminated routes. Viewing the wiki pages of almost any other airport, it's easy to see that terminated destinations should not be included on the page. Someone should improve this section, or else I think it shold be removed. Dennisc24 (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definately not encyclopedic or relavant. Wikipedia is not a news service. Removed section. SempreVolando (talk) 09:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Full airlines list

I have listed all airlines & destinations together this gives a much clearer destination understanding.Kavs8 (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is easier to understand scheduled and charter flights when they are separated--Teddy455 (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy455 have you read wiki policy? it says all destinations are to be listed with airlines attached! also it's pure lasyness as when you click that airline destinations (either charter/scheduled) are lasyness i will continue to revert your edits Teddy455 also if you continue to revert you can also begin to revert -> Dublin Airport, Shannon Airport, London Heathrow Airport, London Gatwick Airport, Birmingham Airport, Manchester Airport, Glasgow Airport thanks again:)Kavs8 (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

We need to protect the Cork Airport wikipedia page (check history) vandilsim has to be un-done in most cases regurarly.Kavs8 (talk) 06:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any opinions?Kavs8 (talk) 07:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. A semi-protection is needed, just like the Dublin Airport article, to prevent this ongoing vandalism to the destination list. --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk · contribs)} 11:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New picture at top of page

Recently Kavs8 changed the picture at the top of this article. Personally, I think the previous picture was best. As it showed the airport at night, lit up and with an Irish plane in the distance... The new picture is at dusk, it looks to have rained, its got a Wizz Air plane that dominates the picture, and it is a personal opinion of myself that it is rather dreary! I didn't want to revert the picture without discussion. But I would prefer if it was. Any thoughts out there? --NorthernCounties (talk) 08:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I probably prefer the first one too actually. The Wizz Air picture could be used further down the page, and the old picture is better to put the top of the article. --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk · contribs)}

I have a new picture of an aerial view of the new termianl and surrounding area should this be uploaded?? Kavs8 (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that sounds good! Upload it and we'll see :) --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this aerial view picture sounds promising!--NorthernCounties (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a picture approaching runway 17.. i also re-loaded the Wizz & the first pic^^ to the main page also. It was taken by my instructor in 2007 hard 1 to get may i ad! Kavs8 (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great photo! Especially that you can see landing lights in full operation, and the terminal to the left! Well done getting it of your instructor! And thanks for re-adding the previous photo aswell!--NorthernCounties (talk) 09:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem glad you liked them! Kavs8 (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article looks great with the all the new pictures! They illustrate the airport very well, good work.. 195.110.90.129 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Destinations Map

I was just wondering would you consider making a map like they have in Lisbon Airport 79.97.111.246 (talk)

Aer Lingus to Frankfurt

Having seen the Frankfurt route added to Aer Lingus list earlier in the month, I started checking the airline's website regularly, but the route still has not shown up there. Wondering why this was, I contacted the airport directly to verify if in fact the route is going ahead and (regrettably) got the following reply:

"Thanks you for your feedback. While there would be market demand for a direct Cork-Frankfurt service, no Airline has yet made a commercial decision to operate such a service. While we have presented the strongest possible business case to the relevant Airlines, any decision would be for 2012 at the earliest."

Maybe there is something that I haven't heard of myself. Maybe it is something that the airport and Aer Lingus are keeping under wraps until such a time as they can confirm the route, or maybe it's not happening at all. As such, I feel it would be appropriate to remove this from the destinations section for the time being. Number10a (talk) 10:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Frankfurt as a destination again as someone added it in without it being confirmed by either Aer Lingus or the airport. Number10a (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frankfurt has now being replaved by Burssels. Jamie2k9 (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orbest Orizonia Airlines

Do Orbest Orizonia Airlines fly out of cork all year round?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.60.199.83 (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.Jamie2k9 (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What days do Orbest Orizonia Airlines fly out of cork and are the flights all year round

Bus schedules

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that the "bus schedule" table is problematic in terms of the "Wikipedia is not a guide book" guidelines? To my understanding of the guidelines, having what amounts to a bus schedule is not in keeping with the project tenets. It's hardly encyclopedic. A brief detail on the operators might be appropriate, but listing each bus number, the route and the stops is overkill for an article about the airport. This content is better suited to WikiVoyage (or the Airport website itself). Wikipedia isn't the place for it. (IMO) Guliolopez (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree wikipedia is not a travel guide. MilborneOne (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Guliolopez (talk) 23:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lanzarote...

Calima Aviación / Calima Airlines are doing the Lanzarote flight this winter http://www.falconholidays.ie/fcfalcon/page/flightoptions/flightoptions.page?packageNumber=003802THPVIP1382273700000138229500000011113828644000001382878500000110&selectedBoardBasis=SC&sttrkr=mthyr:10/2013_tsrch:false_tuidesc:L00042_day:28_mps:9_sda:true_pconfig:1%7C2%7C0%7C0%7C0%7C/_tchd:0_rating:0_dess:true_act:0_jsen:true_attrstr:%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7Cnull%7Cnull_mdest:false_dursel:true_tinf:0_mnth:10_desc:357_bc:18_margindt:7_tadt:2_numr:1_depm:7_dur:7_dtx:0_dxsel:0_dac:ORK_loct:0_pps:false_tsnr:0_year:2013_dta:false__uc:003802_sd:20/10/2013_pid:003802THPVIP1382273700000138229500000011113828644000001382878500000110_bb:SC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.83.249.69 (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edits only by registered users on this page

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi, I'm requesting semi-protection for this article following recent abuses i.e. the adding of ad-hoc charters and removal of warnings which seek to prevent article vandalism by 84.156.58.3. Overall the article would be better protected from non-sourced edits by non-registered users like for example Dublin Airport.

Not done: requests for changes to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --ElHef (Meep?) 04:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 passenger numbers

Hi. In recent days a number of edits have sought to add 2013 passenger numbers. But have not supported with reliable or valid cites. When the DAA or Cork Airport publish official 2013 numbers (or they are otherwise made available via the press or other reliable sources), then we can add them. Until that time, the numbers that are being added don't meet the WP:VER and WP:RELY guidelines. (For example, in this edit, numbers for all of 2013 were added - but the cite link references a press release from JANUARY 2013. In January 2013, there were no "cyrstalball" numbers available for the rest of the year, and even if the airport PR people had made a forecast in January, that forecast is NOT in that cite. Similarly, in this edit 2013 PAX numbers were "supported" with a link to a Tweet. Not only is Twitter very suspect under the WP:RELY guidelines, but the Tweet didn't even include the 2.3 million number which was added). Anyway, seriously lads, while these numbers might be valid, until they are actually published in reliable and verifiable sources, these additions are not inline with guidelines. It is better to have "older" confirmed numbers, than to have "newer" suspect ones. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References for charter flights

If you find any references for charter flights operating at ORK please add them as it can be hard to find out if charters are still running. Please remove any charters that are no longer running. Thanks, Vg31-irl (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents

In a recent series of edits, the details of a 2011 incident (in which a number of flights were affected by a significant runway incursion security incident) were removed. The reason given was that it "wasn't an aircraft incident". I may be missing something, and happy to have a discussion about it, but I am not certain there is consensus (either on this article or on other articles within the scope of the airports project) to only mention/list incidents directly involving an aircraft crash. While I of course understand that WP:OSE is not in itself an argument, it does show a general project consensus for the relevance/notability of certain content types. In that vein, I would note that the article on MSY includes details of the affects of Katrina and tornadoes on the airport (and content on a ground-side shooting incident). Similar incidents are listed on the LAX article (including a standalone article on at least one non-aircraft incident). I would also note that there is also plenty of precedent and concensus that "near missses" are notable. While the content on the 2011 incident could likely be summarised, I don't see that "not news" and "not a crash" are appropriate arguments for removing this content. Other thoughts? Guliolopez (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised what the proposing editor meant by the suggestion to "Put it in 2001 to date section" (apologies for missing that suggestion and not following-up on it). Again, precedent would suggest that security incidents of this type be listed in the "incidents" section. Note for example that the:

FCO and VIE gun attack incidents are listed in the article's "incidents and accidents" section
2002 and 2013 LAX shooting incidents is/are listed in the article's "incidents and accidents" section
Above-mentioned MSY events are listed in the article's "incidents and accidents" section
There's an entire "terrorism and security incidents" sub-section in the LHR article's "incidents and accidents" section
etc, etc

As such, I'm not really seeing a concensus/precedent for dealing with these types of incidents in a "history" style section. Not exclusively anyway. Certainly the relevant listing in the ORK "incidents" section could be summarised. But I don't necessarily follow the argument that it doesn't qualify as a notable "incident" (of the type covered in these sections elsewhere). Again, happy to have the discussion. Guliolopez (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK - Seems like I'm talking to myself here. So, I'm going to summarise the content (to address the WP:NOTNEWS concern). But I am going to restore it (as precedent and project consensus would suggest the "not an aircraft incident" concern is not applicable). Guliolopez (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what you need[2]. Airport bombings/terrorist aren't listed with aviation accidents and incidents. Why would a section composed of such things that go in those templates include items not eligible for the template? The Garda attack is in the history section of the article now....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine, they are allowed in th 'Accidents and Incidents' section. You have made changes to alot of articles after I looked at your contributions, now you are reffering to a disscussion made 3 years ago, which was an 'agreement' made by you and 2 users, which can not be accepted as verifiable in this case, I have started a disscussion at WT:AIRPORTS. RMS52 (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that 2 users saying 'yes' is not a consensus or a disscussion. RMS52 (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WilliamJE. Firstly thanks for engaging in the discussion. It is quite disheartening when more seasoned editors engage in content blanking and reverting without first contributing to an open discussion/thread. Secondly, as RMS52 has noted, I am not seeing the relevance of the discussion you highlight. That discussion appears to have been in the context of the Aviation project/working-group, rather than once specific to Airport articles. Hence it wouldn't seem appropriate to interpret it in a way that suggests that "airport incidents" shouldn't be listed in an "airport incidents" section. The discussion seems to have been that "airport incidents" shouldn't be listed in a specific "aviation accidents and incidents" template. But that is not what is in question here. As per the various examples I have noted above, there is no apparent project consensus that runway incursions or similar incidents (shootings, bombings and the like) should be excised from "airport incidents" sections. In fact there is plenty of apparent consensus that such incidents SHOULD be listed in an incidents section. Flatly, there is no consensus on this article (or elsewhere) for the changes you are proposing. Guliolopez (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above comment by Guliolopez. VG31-irl 23:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Movement numbers 2015-2016

Hi. One editor (Jamie2k9), and an anon (from DIT) have suggested that the IAA Commercial Movements tables (dated December 2016) indicate that there were 19,149 aircraft movements in 2016 (increasing from 18,141 in 2015). However, when I look at the table (recreated below), while I can see 18,141 number for 2015, the number I see for 2016 is 20,147. I do not see the proposed number (19,149) anywhere in the table or elsewhere on the page/ref provided for aircraft movement stats. Where (either in this table or elsewhere) is the stat that other editors are proposing to use? Guliolopez (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Monthly Review: December 2016

Dublin - Commercial Movements
Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sept	Oct	Nov	Dec	Total
2015	13,149	12,573	14,453	15,584	17,015	18,101	18,732	18,137	17,211	17,072	14,722	14,484	191,233
2016	14,528	14,106	16,092	17,044	18,719	19,384	20,154	19,872	18,689	18,323	15,269	15,340	207,520
Change	10.5%	12.2%	11.3%	9.4%	10%	7.1%	7.6%	9.6%	8.6%	7.3%	3.7%	5.9%	8.2%

Cork - Commercial Movements
Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sept	Oct	Nov	Dec	Total
2015	1,246	1,212	1,358	1,487	1,638	1,800	1,835	1,661	1,565	1,661	1,321	1,357	18,141
2016	1,357	1,318	1,523	1,655	1,959	2,143	2,099	2,060	1,754	1,638	1,317	1,324	20,147
Change	8.9%	8.7%	12.2%	11.3%	19.6%	19.1%	14.4%	24%	12.1%	-1.4%	-0.3%	-2.4%	11.1%

Shannon - Commercial Movements
Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sept	Oct	Nov	Dec	Total
2015	1,253	1,026	1,277	1,454	1,725	2,169	2,058	1,728	1,780	1,645	1,283	1,312	18,710
2016	1,222	1,128	1,390	1,488	1,807	2,031	2,032	1,834	1,839	1,698	1,353	1,327	19,3
Change	-2.5%	9.9%	8.8%	2.3%	4.8%	-6.4%	-1.3%	6.1%	3.3%	3.2%	5.5%	1.1%	2.3%

OK. So, in this edit the anon DIT editor points to another IAA table which gives different numbers. However, what we have therefore is two DIAA sources which conflict with each other. This one (a graphic/image) which assigns the (18,141 for 2015 and 20,147 for 2016) to Shannon, and this one (a HTML table) which assigns the same numbers to Cork. In honesty, unless we can clarify which of the two are correct, it might be best to remove entirely. Guliolopez (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Personally I think that the HTML/Table is correct. And the image/graphic incorrect. My main reason for suggesting this is that all the older reports and metrics (like this graphic) give the 2015 number as 18,141. Guliolopez (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC))[reply]

OK. Seems I may be talking to myself here, but I've just gone ahead and removed the aircraft movement numbers. The IAA have published conflicting numbers for 2016 (As above, in the graphic attached to this press release, they give 19,149 for Cork. But the source table gives 20,147 for Cork (and attributes the 19,149 number to SNN). Personally I think whoever put the graphic together just transposed the numbers for SNN and ORK. However, as this error/conflict has now precipitated a sequence of changes (effectively an editwar) over the last 2 weeks, I think it's just time to cut loses, and just remove it entirely. Better to have no numbers than incorrect ones. (Personally I think the 20,147 number is correct, as it aligns with the source tables/data, but as other editors seemingly do not agree, and as there has been no contributions to consensus on this talk thread [I have been talking to myself], I'm just removing them.) Guliolopez (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure the source table you linked is correct. I checked to make sure the YoY change statistics are correct and they are so they're more than likely the correct figures. VG31 16:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POV and PROMO

An IP anon (Messagelabs) recently added some content which is problematic relative to the guidelines on WP:PROMO, WP:PEACOCK and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. A(nother?) editor later restored it. Problematic content included an unattributed/uncited assertion that the airport is "known as the international gateway to the South of Ireland", that it "offers passengers the opportunity to fly to 50+ global destinations", that handlers "operate efficiently and effectively at the airport", that it "is renowned as one of Europe’s best training airports with every conceivable flight training aid available". While a handful of (semi-related) websites are offered to support (some) of these promotional claims, a majority (including the advertising wording about "every conceivable flight training aid available") are primary sources or otherwise problematic relative to WP:RS. That a commercial entity uses wording in its promotional material doesn't make it true, reliable or appropriate for inclusion. I am removing this stuff. Again. And would welcome input (from the "anon" or other users) on what aspects of the proposed text can perhaps be tempered or improved - to align with this project's standards. A large chunk of it however cannot remain in its current form. Guliolopez (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cork 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/20110717025716/http://www.corkcoco.ie/co/pdf/869571405.pdf to http://www.corkcoco.ie/co/pdf/869571405.pdf

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) 16:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cork 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/20110614234448/http://www.iaa.ie/index.jsp?p=93&n=96&a=718 to http://www.iaa.ie/index.jsp?p=93&n=96&a=718
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.corkcoco.ie/co/pdf/359024904.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.corkcoco.ie/co/pdf/57062904.pdf

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) 04:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cork 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/20110721132729/http://www.transport.ie/upload/general/2571.pdf to http://www.transport.ie/upload/general/2571.pdf

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) 01:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]