Talk:United Airlines

List of destinations

I noticed that under the Destinations and Hubs section there is no list of United destinations. I can distinctly recall having seen an article or chart for United Airlines in the past, same as just about every other major airline in existence.

As I don't have an account, could someone recreate the "List of United Airlines Destinations" page? 130.76.24.16 (talk) 07:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

An attempt was recently made to insert a table of all destinations into the article. I believe this is WP:UNDUE and violates WP:NOTDB. I have reverted for now, but wanted to open a discussion here. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey Educated, thanks for providing a reason for the revert. I personally think it is appropriate to have the list of destinations within the article, as it is important information to a reader whom may be interested in viewing routes. Especially when there is not a very clear list of routes outside of Wikipedia. American Airlines and the AirAsia group articles also have databases within their articles. HoldenFan1104 (talk) 11:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to the discussion so quickly! I can see the argument that a reader may be interested. My main concern is that giving it so much real estate comes off as promotional, sort of like a catalogue of goods or services offered by a company. That it was collapsed is a good start, but since it seems almost every entry is sourced to a live map United offers, perhaps it'd be easier and more WP:DUE to note somewhere that United offers a map of route coverage, and link to that map in the citation. I'd also like to hear from other editors; I'm new enough that I could be mistaken in my interpretation of policy, so hearing from others would be welcome. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:43, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you too for your reply, I totally understand how it may come off as promotional. But most airlines on Wikipedia have their own dedicated article for a list of destinations, there is even a category for 'List of airline destinations' at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_airline_destinations

United also doesn't seem to have an online map for its routes anymore, making it pretty hard to find a decent list of their current routes on a third party website. I believe it should be returned and remain as a collapsible box, just as additional information to a reader who may be interested, just like the American Airlines main article with a box. And for what's it worth, the collapsible box actually makes it less eyecatchy/promotional in my opinion. But I'm open to discussion

Cheers HoldenFan1104 (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I can see that. I still think the article is better without the box, and that (other articles notwithstanding) a list is not necessary, but until/unless a consensus against its inclusion emerges, I've self-reverted. Thanks again for being so responsive! EducatedRedneck (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for the discussion and the revert. See you around. HoldenFan1104 (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

A 2018 RFC found consensus that: "...Wikipedia should not have these lists, due to the excessive detail and maintenance required for keeping a local version up to date of data which is available directly from airline websites anyway. Basically, the arguments in Wikipedia is not a directory."

This was later upheld in a 2024 AFD discussion specifically related to the list of United Airlines destinations.

In light of that, I don't think these tables belong on this page (or any page). We would need to see widespread consensus for a policy change before adding these back. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

In contrary the widely held consensus is that properly referenced tables are more than fine. Your removal is not ok. Axisstroke (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Here’s my take: There are already many dedicated article pages for airline destinations, as seen at ‘Category: List of airline destinations’. I personally believe that keeping a collapsible table with destinations would be beneficial. But that is ultimately not my decision, it’s of the consensus. HoldenFan1104 (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I’ll just point out that collapsible tables don’t collapse on mobile devices, and most Wikipedia traffic is on mobile devices. RickyCourtney (talk) 01:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I found a way to make the list collapsible for mobile users, have tested it myself and it appears to work perfectly. I've copied both the United and American destinations into my own personal sandbox for updates, you can test out the collapsible box under 'American Airlines' at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HoldenFan1104/List_of_United_Airlines_destinations HoldenFan1104 (talk) 10:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@HoldenFan1104 I can confirm that this works on my mobile device. Thank you! EducatedRedneck (talk) 10:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Beautiful, should be up on both the United Airlines and American Airlines main articles under 'Networks' for both. HoldenFan1104 (talk) 11:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Axisstroke Do you have a link to any of these widely held consenses? Per WP:LEVELSOFCON, an RFC is considered one of the best representations of community consensus, and RickyCourtney has linked to multiple RFCs against inclusion. Unless you have a more recent RFC, Axisstroke, I think we have to go with the consensus that was widely established. EducatedRedneck (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Indeed there was a very recent RFC that favor the destinations lists: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 60#RfC on WP:NOT and British Airways destinations found that these lists do not violate WP:NOT. Hence consensus with wide participation is given. Axisstroke (talk) 08:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Gave this a read, this certainly confirms that destination articles are allowed to have a place on Wikipedia. If there are so many dedicated Wikipedia articles for airline destinations, then a small collapsible box (that can also work on mobile) should certainly be allowed. HoldenFan1104 (talk) 10:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Axisstroke That's very helpful, thank you! While it's not a perfect fit (this RFC is about standalone lists, it's only saying it doesn't violate WP:NOT but not positively affirming its inclusion, etc.) enough of the comments were discussing merging standalone lists with the airline articles that a strong argument could be made. I still think the encyclopedia is better without them, but the RFC is both more recent and close enough in subject that I take it as overturning the prior consensus. EducatedRedneck (talk) 10:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly is a bit of a complicated thing to discuss. Like I've been mentioning, I do believe that these lists do deserve a place on Wikipedia. Even while this platform is not exactly a 'database', these lists contain information for historical routes which may be of interest to many readers (like myself), especially with the all the proper sourcing and referencing these routes have.

I have chosen to re-add the two lists back to their respect articles as collapsible lists (which I've edited to now also work as a collapsible list on mobile). HoldenFan1104 (talk) 11:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with EducatedRedneck that the encyclopedia is better without them as Wikipedia is not a travel guide, nor a database, nor a specialty site. However I also realize that there’s a group of editors who passionately want these tables as evidenced by the RfC.

@HoldenFan1104 The chart that you added has quite a few holes in sourcing which needs to be addressed ASAP. Furthermore, it heavily relies on primary sources (the United route map). Considering the recent drama over the airport destination boxes, someone is gonna call this out if not replaced by reliable, secondary sources. RickyCourtney (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I will see to this soon. The database was essentially just taken from the original dedicated page. I have looked over it and the info should be accurate, but I’ll try and get some more secondary references in. HoldenFan1104 (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose merging the United Airlines Holdings page into the United Airlines page. Since United Airlines is the sole holding of United Airlines Holdings, much of the content on the page is redundant. The limited amount of unique content can be incorporated into the United Airlines page without causing article size or weighting problems. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd support that. I think most people who search for "United Airlines" are looking for this page, and a redirect to the United Airlines#Holdings section would make sure the others still get where they're going. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree Rehhehfcjkerh (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree. The AAG and UAH should be rolled into their airlines' articles as the mergers that created their holding companies are long past and footnotes now. Those stories along with AMR and UAL articles would be more appropriately be included in their airlines' history articles. Norco3921 (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

How's that merge going? Norco3921 (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Related discussion

Note there is a discussion related to this page at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#United_Airlines_Fleet_website. Canterbury Tail talk 20:45, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Noting here that I've reinstated the tag until that discussion concludes because... c'mon. It's a tag. I didn't remove the figure and replace it with a new one. It was just a note for editors to look for more sources. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

United Fleet Google Site

Is FlightAware a reliable source? Norco3921 (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't know; it's a private entity with a vested interest in making itself look like one. Beyond that, it's a question for WP:RSN. Unless it can be demonstrated to be one, I'd probably avoid it, myself. Note that in the RSN discussion, I address that the spreadsheets cite flightaware. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Can you explain using a "better source needed" for the United info fleet box total when none of the Delta, AAL, JBLU, Alaska, Frontier, Air France, Lufthansa, BA nor JAL has any source cited. The fleet total in the info box is pretty much a repetition of the total from the fleet section of these articles. United's is well-sourced, but several of these others are not. Will you please remedy the inconsistent handling of this or would you like me to? Norco3921 (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

1. Why are you asking me? I didn't add the tag, I just disagreed with the removal of a maintenance tag without discussion or fixing the issue.
2. If I had to, I'd justify it with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because someone in my neighborhood has fun smashing mailboxes doesn't mean I'm free to do so as well. You'll also note I've never edited any of those other articles, so I suppose it'd fall to you to fix it, if you dislike the inconsistency. Just make sure you believe in the changes you make, per WP:POINT.
3. Note that United's in-text source disagrees with your preferred source. The 2025 10-K form has an entirely different figure, depending on whether you count leased or only owned, and it's undoubtedly more of an authority AND doesn't require frequent updating.

I will move this discussion from my talk page to the United page, where it is more appropriate. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

1. You were the one who put the erroneous tag back up.
2. It is erroneous not because you or Canterbury Tail are fixated on this airline page and reference, it is because there is not requirement of a reference for the info box total when there are numerous other references including the extremely accurate United fleet site for the fleet paragraph and chart from where the total comes. I bring it up to show how fixated you all are on your argument and not the facts.
3. If you are referencing Canterbury Tail's claim that a specific aircraft was designated as leased or owned it appears he misread the page on the site. If you are referencing something else then please explain. In fact please list all the incorrect information you can find on this site.

The fact of the matter is that site is unique to United and it is extremely accurate as is FlightAware that gets its data from multiple reliable sources all of which corroborate each other's data along with all the other sources properly cited in the United WP article. Unless you all have some actual evidence of flaws in this source I think it is time to put this silliness to bed. Norco3921 (talk) 04:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

1. It was an out-of-process removal. See WP:WTRMT. Whether it's erroneous or not is irrelevant, because everyone always thinks that they're right. That's why we follow process anyway.
2. What you described is a WP:POINT change. This does not convince anyone of your viewpoint. As for fixation and "facts", let's let the RSN thread play out. That will show where consensus lies.
3. I'm referencing the fleet figure. I have no obligation to find flaws in the source. Per WP:ONUS, it's your job to convince us it belongs, not our job to convince you it doesn't.

I'll try one more time to explain. It doesn't matter what sources the google site cites. It could be citing the Library of Congress, but that still wouldn't make the google site a WP:RS. Undergrad essays cite WP:RS, but they sure as heck aren't reliable. At this point, you don't seem to be listening and we have a discussion at RSN which will solve the issue definitively. I'll also move the better source needed to the body where the source appears; the problem is with the source, not the infobox. There's no point in continuing this discussion here when RSN has broader community input. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Whether Flightaware is a reliable site or not is not relevant to this article, this article isn't referencing Flightaware for the fleet data it's referencing a third party website of unknown reliability and provenance. Canterbury Tail talk 00:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Obviously, the FlightAware hyperlinks are completely relevant as the are a key feature of the site and they corroborate all the data on it and from other sources sited on the United WP page. And the site obviously uses FlightAware for some of the fleet data. Norco3921 (talk) 04:28, 25 May 2025 (UTC)