Talk:Amsterdam Airport Schiphol

Flag icons

Essentially copying this discussion from Talk:Detroit Metropolitan Airport#Flag icons in table because that discussion is identical to this issue.

Numerous articles contain tables with flagicons in the busiest routes/statistics table(s). Per MOS:FLAGS: In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself. A list of busiest routes for an airport doesn't meet that criteria. Why are they persistently being added?

Courtesy pinging @Hhl95 Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:15, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

That phrase is a suggestion rather than a rule. In that sense, I don't think there's a breach. Moreover, tables of busiest routes are often split in a table for domestic and a table for international routes. This means that the tables themselves are based on the nationality of the destinations. So that means that the flags are actually pertinent to the purpose of the table. And the way we use to do it in this article, also abides with the actual rules of MOS:FLAG, namely that the flag is accompanied by the country's name and that the flag is not given greater preference over the written name. It also doesn't change the style or lay-out of the table. Hhl95 (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

None of the uses I have seen in any statistics table has the flag next to the country name - it has been {{flagicon|Austria}} (for example), which renders as - no country link in sight. As for that sentence being a suggestion… it's an example of when flags MAY be used - and this use does not meet those criteria. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:18, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

The country name is mentioned after city name in this case. We can turn that around if that makes you happy.

And no, the phrase is a suggestion. It doesn't say when it may be used (as in allowed to use), it says when it may be relevant (as in could be relevant). You don't say "is allowed to be relevant". So your understanding of 'may' is not correct in this context. It's not a criterium; it's a suggestion. And like I explained, in this case the flags are pertinent to the table anyways. Hhl95 (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry but, quite simply, you are incorrect. The manual of style is there as the style for Wikipedia as a whole, to keep a standardised format across the site. It's clear that the section on flags is talking about when it is acceptable to use flags - and this is not an acceptable use. If you go to the bottom of the talk pages archives for this article, you'll notice I'm not the first person to raise concerns about the use of flag icons here - indeed, the discussion was only archived after this one was opened. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:21, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Whether or not it is an acceptable use, is decided by the Manual of Style, and not by your opinion. Using flags in this case does not breach any aspect of the Manual of Style and I have not seen you giving any argument why it would. I also have not seen you giving any argument why my arguments would be invalid. If you cannot give any argument based on the Manual of Style, I will reinstate the flags, as there is no reason to remove them and I have already explained why flags are pertinent to the purpose of the table. Hhl95 (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

You seem to conveniently be ignoring the very first message I left here where I directly address the part of the MOS that is being breached………

Also pinging another involved editor that has been doing the same - @10mmsocket, as I suspect they can explain it better. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 06:37, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it can be clearer in that first message - how is the use of flags pertinent? They are merely a decoration and add no value whatsoever. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:43, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I have explained that in the second message, which you both seem to be conveniently ignoring. Hhl95 (talk) 11:17, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I see you unilaterally decided to reintroduce the icons. Please don't, there is no consensus here for their inclusion. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Status quo is that they are there and there is no consensus for their removal. Hhl95 (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no consensus for their being there. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:16, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Seconded. That which does not add any useful information has no place on an encyclopedia. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Excuse me if I repeat the obvious, but I remember since the days of Noah that flag-icons are unwanted in aviation-related articles, by common consensus. In my proper humble opinion they are no more than eye-candy and are even unwanted everywhere. And yes, I am in favour of removing them, especially in aviation-related articles. We are managing an encyclopedia, mind you, not a comic strip. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I fear you're not stating the obvious, as some appear to object. I've been gradually removing them as I find them - this article is only one of many - but it does appear to have met with resistance. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:18, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

"stating"?? I only wrote "repeating". Not for the first time: please read more carefully. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Eh? I'm agreeing with you, and I'm not quoting you. In what possible world does that change of word change the underlying meaning of what you said? I'm rather at a loss why this a message of agreement from myself has suddenly turned into a shooting match Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:00, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Of course you are at a loss. Careful detailed reading is obviously beyond you. But yes, we do seem to have some common opinions. Jan olieslagers (talk) Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok. Consider this a formal warning about remaining WP:CIVIL. Calm down your language and personal attacks. I was not directly quoting you, and it is my personal prerogative to paraphrase another editor's comment, as long as I don't pretend it's a direct quote. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:15, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Consider this an informal forgiving smile. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

That's quite an unserious reaction. Flags do not make it a comic strip. I'd rather like to hear you arguments about what aspect of MOS:FLAG would be breached by including the flags, and how you would reflect on my arguments that support the inclusion of flags. Hhl95 (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

• No flag icons. They're just distracting visual decorations that actually serve no purpose. Too small to be useful, and the airports don't represent the countries. They're clutter. Canterbury Tail talk 19:14, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  Whether they are distracting, is a personal experience. For me, they help navigating the table. Also, airports do represent countries in the sense that they act as a gateway to those countries. But most importantly, they do not breach MOS:FLAG. Hhl95 (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

  Reviewing Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons, specifically MOS:FLAGS, use of flags in these tables appears to be inappropriate. Your edit summary mentions a lacking consensus but looking at this conversation, consensus has been reached, just not in your favor. S1mply.dogmom (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Note that as Hhl95 keeps trying to restore their preferred version despite consensus and prior warnings, I’ve opened a discussion at WP:AN3. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:42, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

How is this a 'consensus'. Its a discussion between a handful of people on some random airport talk page. There should be a more formal review of this in a more prominent area that more people see. These flag icons have been on the top destination lists for years. Not sure why there is a big push to change that all of a sudden. The purpose of top destination lists is to show what cities/countries have the most passengers. That is by definition 'pertinent to the purpose of the list'~2026-27389-58 (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

See WP:CONSENSUS. This sort of discussion is how the vast majority of disputes about content are resolved. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:23, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

"The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view." So we need to focus on the arguments here. I have brought up my arguments and they have not been refuted. I don't think there is any basis to conclude that consensus has been reached. Hhl95 (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

What you're actually saying is "I don't like it" because the answer hasn't gone your way. I would say just leave it now. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:41, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

=

Qatar Airways removed?

What happened to Qatar Airways and its flight to Doha? ~2026-37066-53 (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

You're free to add it to the table with a supporting reference. 10mmsocket (talk) 05:23, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Namesake of the Oostbaan and 7th runway.

Having lived close to Schiphol for the better part of my life, I was surprised to read that the namesake of the Oostbaan was simply being the easternmost runway. In my experience, it was always called the Schiphol-Oostbaan (and not just 'Oostbaan'), since it is located immediately adjacent to the separate urban area of Schiphol-Oost; where Schiphol as an airport started and where the first tower and terminal were until 1967. https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiphol-Oost

In some official communication, I found references that Schiphol Group themselves also use the name 'Schiphol-Oostbaan' rather than 'Oostbaan', another indication that the name refers not to the compass but to the origins of the airport.

Finally and on a separate topic, wouldn't it be nice to mention the 7th runway 14-32, out-of-service for over 5 decades but still in place and reused as taxiway G3? ~2026-44394-86 (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I forgot to add a link to my final claim regarding former runway 14-32: Google Maps abstract at the bottom of https://www.nhnieuws.nl/nieuws/314167/nh-airtime-cleared-to-land-alles-over-de-oostbaan-van-schiphol ~2026-44394-86 (talk) 11:49, 13 August 2026 (UTC)