Kion de Mexico was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 11 June 2024 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into United Airlines. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
Chelsea Food Services was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 28 July 2018 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into United Airlines. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) 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.
United Airlines was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois 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.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois
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
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) 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.
United Airlines received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
I would like to discuss something that seems to be taken the wrong way. About a week or two ago I tried to post the interior of a 737-900 on the United Airlines article but it got removed by someone with very little explanation. I am confused on why it was because the 737-900s are a big part of United's fleet and have been ever since the Continental merger in 2010 as they inherited them from Continental at that time and the one I posted had a clear view of all the necessities such as the aisles, seats and tv's. Also, the premium plus seat is a pic of just a seat and the 787 interior had already been used once and the article should be pics of a variety of different fleets they have like a healthy mix of both wide body and narrow body but not excessively obviously not just certain ones repeatedly which is all i was trying to execute. Hopefully you understand by intent now since I have done the best I think I could've done to explain myself. Thanks for everyone's attention Gymrat16 (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Wanted to engage in a discussion with Norco3921 and others in light of recent changes to the page.
The rewritten version of the intro excludes important details like the legal name of the company (required by style rules) and basic overview of the history of the company.
As to the history section, I agree that the way it existed wasn't ideal. It needs a complete rewrite. However, excerpting only the beginnings section of the History of United Airlines page isn't an acceptable solution. It may be well written, but it only covering the company history until the mid-1930s, missing a lot of critical modern history. Plus, it has a level of specificity too detailed for the mainpage.
I would propose either the history section is rewritten... or a nice summary section is written for the top of the History of United Airlines page. RickyCourtney (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the current two opening paragraphs, and a header and sentence that I incorporated into the edited opener. The previously poorly written and disjointed history section is currently just below the opening paragraphs so it is redundant and distracting from a simple and comprehensive description what United Airlines currently is, not what it was. I would think that is what the history section is for. And who says the history section in the United Airlines article has to cover all 98 years when there is a link to the comprehensive article, History of United Airlines? That is why I prefer the well written 'beginnings' paragraphs from the real history. If someone wants the whole history it is waiting for them one click away. I spent a lot of time editing the history, but still prefer the beginnings excerpt.
United Airlines, Inc. is a major airline in the United States headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. United operates an extensive domestic and international route network across the United States and all six inhabited continents primarily out of its seven hubs, with Chicago–O'Hare having the largest number of daily flights and Denver carrying the most passengers in 2023. Regional service is operated by independent carriers under the brand name United Express.
United was formed by the amalgamation of several airlines in the late 1920s, the oldest of these being Varney Air Lines, created in 1926 by Walter Varney who later co-founded the predecessor to Continental Airlines. In 1997, United became one of the five founding airlines of Star Alliance, of which it remains a member today. Since its merger with Continental in 2010, United consistently ranks as one of the world's largest airlines; it is currently first by the number of destinations served and fleet size, and second in terms of revenue and market capitalization.
Destinations and hubs
As of January 2025, United Airlines offers nonstop flights to 217 domestic and 146 international destinations in 73 countries and territories across all six continents serving more international destinations than any other U.S. carrier.
Do we need the tidbits about O'Hare and Denver in the intro? The Destinations and hubs header is above one clumsy sentence about destinations, a list of hubs and Alliances and codeshare agreements. A header such as Network might work, but this one in no way encompasses all the three sub-topics.
I spent a lot of time editing this mess (IMO) into the following paragraph along with a lot of other improvements (IMO) and RickyCourtney 'undid' them en masse (+16,877) with the following comment, "I largely disagree with these changes. Many of them are counter to the Manual of Style guidelines, and others just simply aren't an improvement." Here is my paragraph
United Airlines is the largest airline in the world, offering the broadest network with the most destinations. It serves 217 domestic locations across the United States and 146 international destinations in 73 countries and territories on six continents. United’s extensive connectivity is supported by its seven major U.S. hubs, a partnership with five United Express-branded regional carriers, and 25 international airline partners in the Star Alliance, of which United was a founding member in 1997.
As for the title of the article is United Airlines without the Inc. None of Alaska, American, Delta, Skywest among others use their legal name in their Wikipedia articles opening paragraphs, It just reads better. I would love to see the exact style manual reference you are referring to as I couldn't find it in Wiki's style manual, but it is not a big deal either way IMO. Norco3921 (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your effort but find it excessively promotional of the United brand. Please refer to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#ADVERTISING which suggests that "information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery."
The paragraph begins with the statement "United Airlines is the largest airline in the world, offering the broadest network with the most destinations." While true, it should be noted that there is more than one metric in measuring airline size. More importantly, in an objective tone, the reader should only be introduced to the nature of United as a major US airline in the first line, consistent with other Wikipedia airline articles.
What other metrics do you think indicate the size of an airline, and why would one mention an airline being 'major' when it is the largest? Market cap is not the size, but the value of the airline. Revenues come from things that have little to do with the size of the airline such as credit cards, oil refineries and wholly owned subsidiaries. Available seat miles are the most universally accepted metric, but when the same airline also leads in revenue passenger miles, airplanes and cities served I think calling it the largest airline is simply factual. I used United and Star Alliance references for up to date factual/numerical information, not promotional, but I replaced those with other references. Are corporate SEC filings considered promotional? Thanks for the feedback.Norco3921 (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A "major" airline is one with >$1B/year in revenue. There are 57 such airlines including United with $56B and Sun Country with $1.06B. What a waste of the most important sentence on a term that has become almost meaningless.
I reviewed the opening paragraphs of American, Delta and Southwest Airlines' Wikipedia articles and surprise, they all contain corporate 'fact sheets' like those that I previously used and replaced with others at your behest. I also rewrote the opening paragraph removing anything that could be considered 'promotional', I therefore request that you remove the Promotional Content warning from the United article. Thanks in advance. Norco3921 (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So JCHL hasn't responded to my points here or my edits that removed anything that could possibly considered promotional. Instead he just reverted back to the meaningless (IMO) boilerplate first line. Here is his latest effort.
"United Airlines is a major airline in the United States headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. It is the world's largest airline in terms of fleet size and number of destinations served. United operates primarily from its seven hubs an extensive domestic and international network that includes more than 370 destinations in 75 countries across all six inhabited continents. Regional service is operated by contracted carriers under the brand name United Express.
United was formed in the late 1920s through the combination of several airlines, the oldest being Varney Air Lines created in 1926 by Walter Varney. He later co-founded Varney Speed Lines, the predecessor to the independent Continental Airlines which eventually merged with United in 2010. United is one of the five founding airlines of Star Alliance, of which it remains a member today."
Major is redundant when followed up my world's largest airline is in the very next sentence and the last sentence of the second paragraph is completely out of place. JCHL also didn't cite references that demonstrate the two metrics he cited. Norco3921 (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this is not taken personally and would surely hate to see it descend into an edit war, but the same can be said with your recent mass edits to the lead without really consulting other editors' opinions.
As mentioned, there are established conventions to encyclopedic entries and the first line is there to state a fundamental, relatively stable fact. Qualities as dynamic as company figures can serve to augment the paragraph later, and without the "redundancy" it risks stripping things out of context and becoming promotional in tone. I have tried to accommodate your suggestions such as removing hub tidbits, but if you still feel the urge to edit I hope you can improve upon existing frameworks. JCHL (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me these established conventions that require the first line of airline articles to say it is a major airline instead of the largest airline in the world which doesn't change so often. As for consulting editors it is you who failed to address my talk entries, edits that removed anything that could be considered promotional or the citations I changed. You finally responded only now after I edited your problematic rewrite. Norco3921 (talk) 03:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just documenting that you replaced the promotional warning without explaining what the issue was or discussing it here. I changed the opening sentence and removed the promotional warning. Norco3921 (talk) 05:36, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'll note that WP:ONUS says if someone wants to include a claim (e.g., "world's largest airline") the burden of proof is on the one who wants it included. I am not convinced; citations are provided for various metrics, but no WP:RS says flatly "United Airlines is the world's largest airline". If there's doubt, don't say it. To emphasize it, look at the lede of Largest airlines in the world; it mentions several metrics, of which United doesn't take all.
The listing of the metrics in the lede also feels promotional; saying it's one of the largest is good enough, and the details can go farther into the article. I'd suggest the fleet section for the "largest mainline fleet" claim, and the network section for the others. The use of words like "United's extensive network" also sound promotional; I prefer the previous phrasing of "United operates an extensive network".
In general, I'm inclined to just blanket revert to the previous version. This one has many issues, and I have reverted to the status quo ante bellum, and suggest changes to the lede be proposed here piecemeal. Adding information to the rest of the article can be done WP:BOLDly. Finally, I'll note that we don't require citations in the lede. It's supposed to summarize the rest of the article, and MOS:LEDE calls out that it's common for the lede to not have inline citations. If the info doesn't appear elsewhere, then yeah, let's make sure it's sourced, but if the article cites it farther down, we don't need citations for their own sake. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m glad the lede doesn’t require citations because none of them in the first paragraph support the sentences they footnote and the points about O’Hare and Denver are trivial for the lede IMO.
The boilerplate use of ‘major’ means almost nothing in the airline biz as any airline of the 57 with over a $1B in revenue is considered a ‘major’ by the DOT. So Sun Country is a ‘major’ just like the Big 4.
The last sentence in the second paragraph clearly doesn’t belong in a paragraph that begins with the airline’s early history.
Available seat miles/kilometers is the universally accepted metric for the size of an airline as evidenced by the citation. Revenue passenger miles is probably number two , but includes a financial element. Fleet size and destinations next. Revenue is the size of the business not the airline as many airlines take in a disproportionate percentage of their revenue from things that have little to do with the airline or its size. Market cap is the value of the business. There are many other metrics that obviously aren’t as indicative of the size of an airline. And using another Wikipedia page isn’t allowed as a reference due to the circularity of the argument.
i have spent a lot of time and effort improving the United article along with the fleet articles for several big airlines. The writing was/is not good. References are out of date or as seen in your first paragraph don’t support what they claim to. I understand better now why this is the case. Editors like to dabble and demonstrate their WP acumen, but apparently nobody wants to make article readable or informative. Instead of editing mine you all revert to this poorly written and unsupported hodgepodge of edits. Ironically, in looking through this articles history it failed to get some top accolade and remained a B article because the writing was judged to be poor. No kidding.
the points about O’Hare and Denver are trivial for the lede IMO. Okay. Do you have a change to propose?
The boilerplate use of ‘major’ means almost nothing I disagree. It is a phrase with a very specific meaning. If you're saying there are many major airlines, sure, but there are tons of airlines that are not major. You just don't hear about them often. I usually only know about them because of my work.
Available seat miles/kilometers is the universally accepted metric for the size of an airline as evidenced by the citation. Citation needed. One citation uses it as the metric. Not every citation. And again, our opinion doesn't matter; what matters is what the preponderance of WP:RS says.
using another Wikipedia page isn’t allowed as a reference due to the circularity of the argument. Did I cite it in the article? I'm pretty sure I was just pointing to a reasoning for an editorial decision, not citing it in the article. Which is allowed, or else pointing to things like WP:V on talk pages would also be forbidden.
Editors like to dabble and demonstrate their WP acumen, but apparently nobody wants to make article readable or informative.WP:AGF, please. I understand that you're frustrated, but perhaps you'd find things go better if you respect WP:ONUS and propose changes individually. That way the good doesn't get thrown out with the bad. I'd also point out that your work isn't gone; it's still there in the history.
explain how "United's extensive network" sounds promotional, but “United operates an extensive network" is better Not really, no. It's just a feeling. Perhaps it's because it puts the emphasis on United (the network is a part of it) rather than just a connection (there's an extensive network, with which United is associated), perhaps it was because of all the previous puffery, but that's my feeling. I'd like to hear what others think. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Okay. Do you have a change to propose?"
Delete the inline footnotes and this, "with Chicago–O'Hare having the largest number of daily flights and Denver carrying the most passengers in 2023." from the first paragraph. Then take the last sentence from the second paragraph, incorporate it into the first paragraph and write a coherent and cohesive paragraph. The second paragraph should either be deleted as there is a history section right below it or that section should be further rewritten and put into an intro paragraph of the History of United Airlines article that can be used as an excerpt in the United article.
"what matters is what the preponderance of WP:RS says".
The preponderance of the evidence couldn't be clearer.
"Did I cite it in the article? I'm pretty sure I was just pointing to a reasoning for an editorial decision, not citing it in the article. Which is allowed"
Of course its allowed, but you are citing it nonetheless, and doesn't bolster your argument for the same reason, circularity.
explain how "United's extensive network" sounds promotional, but “United operates an extensive network" is better"Not really, no. It's just a feeling. Perhaps it's because it puts the emphasis on United (the network is a part of it) rather than just a connection (there's an extensive network, with which United is associated), perhaps it was because of all the previous puffery, but that's my feeling. I'd like to hear what others think."
I have no objection on whether or not to include "hub trivia".
I like to avoid putting too much details in the form of exact numbers as in your proposal: serving 217 domestic locations across the United States and 146 international destinations in 75 countries and territories on six continents. because they change often and are high-maintenance, while adding to the promotional tone in part due to their currency. I'm also pointing out that your original source [1] does not differentiate between domestic and international destinations unless perhaps you are a subscriber or otherwise able to bypass the paywall.
I find United’s extensive network utilizes seven major U.S. hubs, and partnerships with five United Express-branded regional carriers and 25 international airlines in the Star Alliance to extend its global reach. the most problematic and promotional in tone because it is written in United's perspective. It uses the possessive form United's extensive, mentions the number of Star Alliance partners which is unnecessary, and ends with to extend its global reach which simply reads like PR speak. Just state the facts plainly.
I do not believe the last sentence is out of place because the second paragraph is a high-level overview of United's history. We can certainly improve or expand upon it, but I prefer having Star Alliance introduced in a way that shows United as a co-founding member, rather than boasting its current international connectivity.
I actually agree on the number of destinations. The possessive is NOT from United's perspective, and let's review one of the basics of writing a paragraph, the topic sentence.
TOPIC SENTENCES
A well-organized paragraph supports or develops a single controlling idea, which is expressed in a sentence called the topic sentence. A topic sentence has several important functions: it substantiates or supports an essay’s thesis statement; it unifies the content of a paragraph and directs the order of the sentences; and it advises the reader of the subject to be discussed and how the paragraph will discuss it. Readers generally look to the first few sentences in a paragraph to determine the subject and perspective of the paragraph. That’s why it’s often best to put the topic sentence at the very beginning of the paragraph. In some cases, however, it’s more effective to place another sentence before the topic sentence—for example, a sentence linking the current paragraph to the previous one, or one providing background information.Norco3921 (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that passage applies because topic sentences are designed for expository writing. This is an encyclopedia, and I don't think we should be trying to persuade the reader of anything. I'm also having trouble following the debate when it's en bloc like this; it's too easy for me to conflate issues. It'd be very helpful to me if you could present a bunch of small proposals in the WP:EDITXY style; then we could engage with specifics more easily, and I wouldn't be as distracted by irrelevancies. I expect I'll be much easier to convince about specific "Change X to Y" proposals. EducatedRedneck (talk) 08:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, I found a Wikipedia page that sums this up nicely.
People raise endless objections on Talk pages, instead of fixing what bothers them. On the other hand, people can be too bold in updating pages instead of discussing changes on Talk first. It's impossible to tell in advance how contentious something is because there's no serious indication other than an edit summary and the relative frequency of recent page edits.
The self-esteem of a bad writer with a fragile ego may be damaged by people always correcting horrible prose, redundancies, bad grammar and spelling. This is especially true if proofreaders not only correct but upbraid the poor writers, who can perhaps offer expert knowledge or change subjective statements despite their mediocre use of English. That unnecessary discouragement repels contributors whose only fault is poor writing, not poor thinking.
If you revert or ban too quickly, sometimes a useful contributor will be turned away. If you revert or ban too slowly, then extra time will be citing additions. Wikipedia administrator vandalism itself is controlled only weakly, and there's insufficient power to desysop a popular tyrant. Only the most abusive administrators – perhaps 2% total – have their statuses removed.
A user can in effect exercise ownership over the topics they have the time and energy to defend. Self-appointed censors, fanatics, or other sufficiently dedicated users can further an agenda or prohibit new ideas through persistent attention to a particular page. Even listing examples of this creates problems, such as false accusations and harassment.
People revert edits without explaining themselves (Example: an edit on Economics) (a proper explanation usually works better on the talk page than in an edit summary). Then, when somebody reverts, also without an explanation, an edit war often results. There's not enough grounding in Wikiquette to explain that reverts without comments are inconsiderate and almost never justified except for spam and simple vandalism, and even in those cases comments need to be made for tracking purposes.
There's a culture of hostility and conflict rather than of good will and cooperation. Even experienced Wikipedians fail to assume good faith in their collaborators. It seems fighting off perceived intruders and making egotistical reversions are a higher priority than incorporating helpful collaborators into Wikipedia's community. Glaring errors and omissions are completely ignored by veteran Wikiholics (many of whom pose as scientists, for example, but have no verifiable credentials) who have nothing to contribute but egotistical reverts. There is also no acknowledgement ever that multiple communities might be using Wikipedia not by choice but because they feel they must react to changes or to people using the website.
Like I said in my initial post, what I objected to was the removal of the legal name, in bold, in the first sentence and the lack of any high-level overview of the company’s history in the introduction.
I haven’t been able to find a policy that specifically requires those elements, but there is copious amounts of precedent on Featured and Good class articles for including those basic elements on a company page introduction.
The whole point of the introduction is that if that’s all someone reads, they still
get a good overview of the subject. Seeing as a considerable amount of the page on the company’s history, it’s necessary to include at least a brief overview. RickyCourtney (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I haven’t been able to find a policy that specifically requires those elements"
I appreciate you looking for it.
"The whole point of the introduction is that if that’s all someone reads, they still get a good overview of the subject. Seeing as a considerable amount of the page on the company’s history, it’s necessary to include at least a brief overview."
I agree with the first sentence, but none of the rest. The introduction is about what the airline is not what it was. That is the whole point of the history section. The intro doesn't address a lot of items in the article with a "considerable amount of the page." Southwest's page provides the perfect or extreme example of how redundant this is.
Southwest Airlines Look at paragraph two of the intro and paragraph one of the history section.
And not only is there a history section in the intro and the article, but there is a whole other comprehensive article, History of United Airlines. It couldn't be much more redundant.
I think the Southwest Airlines page is a good example of how articles are usually done here. For another instance, consider the United States article. The largest paragraph in the lede, one of four, is history. MOS:LEDE specifies The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. I can see how you might consider "History of United Airlines" to not be the subject of "United Airlines", but I do consider it a component, and thus worth having a paragraph in the lede. I hope that makes it easier to see where we're coming from, even if it doesn't convince you. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article, in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be established, or at least introduced, in the lead (but not by using subjective peacock terms such as "acclaimed" or "award-winning" or "hit"). It is even more important here than in the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article. Consideration should be given to creating interest in the article, but do not hint at startling facts without describing them.
I would say that since there’s a whole Level 2 section on history, it’s clearly an important point of the article worthy of summary. Furthermore, history helps to establish notability. Also redundancy is acceptable in the intro, in fact, it’s sort of the point. We’re offering a summary. RickyCourtney (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course history is important which is why in the case of United it has its own entirely separate article and section within that is positioned just after the introduction which is why including it in the introduction is so obviously unnecessary, redundant and awkward. Norco3921 (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)