Talk:United Airlines

I've seen a little back-and-forth around what to call the airport located in Newark. I suggest we do away with the piping altogether per MOS:EGG and just have it be Newark Airport. I'll see if I can go through and similarly de-pipe some of the others. I suggest this for 3 reasons:

1. MOS:PLACE #1 says that when there is a commonly used name, we should use it. It appears that calling it simply "Newark Airport" is more than twice as common as any construction containing "Newark Liberty". Therefore, we use the common name.
2. There is no confusion over what "Newark Airport" is. This means that, even if there's a name change, "Newark Airport" will still be clear.
3. For the same reason, depiping means if there is any change in the future, we won't have to worry about redlinks or otherwise go through every instance of "Newark Liberty International Airport" and change it to the new name. By using the redirect instead of piping, all we have to do is let someone change the "Newark Airport" piping to the correct name.

Precedent already exists for things such as the North Korea, which uses the common name rather than the mouthful of DPRK. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, note in our list it's San Jose International Airport, note Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah Newark is the sole major airport in Newark, so it doesn't need Liberty for disambiguation (unlike say, Houston-Intercontinental to distinguish from Houston Hobby, or Chicago-O'Hare to distinguish from Chicago-Midway). 4300streetcar (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

This. There’s no need for the disambiguation. At this point using “Newark” alone to represent the airport is long-standing precedent across dozens if not hundreds of pages. RickyCourtney (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

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

Under the United Airline wikipedia page, Corporate Affairs tab -> Employee Relations there is a typo for the United Airlines Maintenance technician are represented by the International International Brotherhood of Teamsters, International is written twice.

Please change to United Airlines maintenance technicians are represented by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Chicagoo Robert (talk) 07:16, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Prolabelmaker (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I recently removed the Bluetooth Incident on the grounds of [[WP:UNDUE]; this is just not a significant incident. It resulted in a diversion, which makes it about as significant as any of the diversions for medical emergencies that happen. There was no loss of life nor any indicator of wrongdoing on the part of United, making this 'incident' a nothingburger compared to the others listed. Just because it is covered in the news now doesn't mean it will have enduring notability (from WP:NOTNEWS). I haven't reverted to avoid an edit war, but wanted some more eyes on this to see what others thought. I suggest the section be removed in its entirety; if enduring notability can be established, (e.g., through persistence through more than a few news cycles) then it should be re-added or retained. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

TBH I was going to revert it and you beat me to it. Fully support for the same reason. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Einsof that's two of us, but it doesn't mean it's a done deal. Would you like to explain what makes this notable? Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:36, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

EducatedRedneck: The threshold you set in your edit summary was "If there's major mainstream news coverage, it can be re-added sourced to that." AP, NPR, and Fox Business independently inquired about this incident and published articles about it, and ABC News, Washington Post, the Guardian, the Independent, and others saw the AP story as important enough to publish themselves. Therefore, I re-added the material with those sources included. If you had some other threshold in mind, you should have written that threshold in your edit summary instead. Einsof (talk) 11:50, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

First, I'm not the sole arbiter of what can be included, so policy-violating content doesn't get included just because I said so. Second, note: major mainstream news coverage. Not widespread minor coverage. I figured "major" combined with the guidelines I supplied was enough to get across the point that it had to show that the event was significant. Live and learn I guess. Finally, the edit summary isn't usually considered a place for long and detailed explanations. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:57, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Apart from The Independent and The Guardian it hasn't been picked up by other UK media. Same seems to be true in other countries. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

It's also a flash in the pan, slow news day fill up the columns item. It won't be mentioned ever again.WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Canterbury Tail talk 12:09, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

The newly conjured requirement of meeting some unspecified threshold of foreign media coverage is not credible. The mail fraud subsection does not have any non-US sources, nor does the subsection on the 1995 shit-smearing incident. Why have you not removed them? And the main article on that incident does not have any foreign sources at all, either... so why in its more than five years of existence has it never gone up for AfD? In fact, that article made it to the front page on DYK on the incident's 25th anniversary, so it passed an independent review and had a large number of eyeballs on it, and nobody vocalized any concern of a NOTNEWS issue. Einsof (talk) 12:10, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Again, enduring notability. That incident has sources from the original 1995 date, AND sources from 2015. I'd say that's enduring. There's no evidence that the bluetooth incident is enduring because it's WP:TOOSOON. As for your removing other stuff arguments, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

I'll also point out that this is the United Airlines article. If it's mentioned here, it should be very much tied to United Airlines specifically, or otherwise be clearly notable. The bluetooth incident could've been any airline and the story would've read much the same.

Let's turn this around. Why do you think this incident, as opposed any number of other incidents resulting in a diversion, improves the encyclopedia by being mentioned on the United Airlines article? How is it more significant than the attempted cockpit breach in Wisconsin earlier this week, or United Breaks Guitars, or the near-collision with a truck? EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:24, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

As for your removing other stuff arguments, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You initiated the comparison to other subsections when you started this discussion, saying this was a nothingburger compared to the others listed. Why did you do that if you feel that such comparisons veer into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? That essay also proscribes arguments of the form "We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this", which is exactly your argument in bringing up these other incidents that aren't yet included in the article. Anyway, United Breaks Guitars should absolutely be included. I'm also not opposed to including the cockpit breach attempt. Einsof (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

If you don't see the difference between "One of these things is not like the others" and "Well fine, why don't you delete all these other things, too?" then I don't know what to tell you. You also haven't explained why you think the Bluetooth incident is more notable than these others which are not included.

I actually could see a section on United Breaks Guitars; it has significant coverage, and while not as severe as some of the others (no loss of life) it does have the cultural significance. The others I mentioned are still nothingburgers; there seems to be no enduring notability. But United Breaks Guitars has had coverage seven plus years after the incident. I'll add an excerpt of it as its own section now. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Einsof (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I hate country (and western) music, but that's quite listenable! 10mmsocket (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Agree with EducatedRedneck and 10mmsocket. Had they not removed it, I would have. I think an enduring notability standard is correct and warranted. Something along the line of the WP:AIRCRASH standard.

I do think we should go in and prune back the incidents added that proved to have little enduring notability.

As for this particular incident, this will last one news cycle. Perhaps shockingly to those who don’t track aviation closely, diversions and security concerns aren’t common, but they’re not rare. Most don’t get this level of coverage, because they simply aren’t that interesting. This one has received coverage because it’s novel/odd. RickyCourtney (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Norco3921 has reinstated an edit of theirs I reverted. Per WP:BRD, they should have opened a discussion here, so I shall do that in their stead.

WP:DISAMBIG is clear: Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous, most often because it refers to more than one subject covered by Wikipedia. There is a disambiguation page, United Airlines (disambiguation). It's okay that this article is the default, but we must have the banner at the top to alert those readers who were looking for one of the three other similarly named articles that such articles exist. This is further specified in WP:DABLINK, saying, any article with an ambiguous title should contain helpful links to alternative Wikipedia articles or disambiguation pages, placed at the top of the article using one or more of the templates.

Norco has described this as, a solution in search of a problem, but their initial removal was that it was distracting and unnecessary to have the tiny banner. I assert that the removal is a solution in search of a problem.

What do other editors think? EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I would support disambiguation. A hatnote doesn't add much. Beyond United Airways, there are also current-day airlines such as China United Airlines the which @Norco3921 has not made an argument against disambiguating. 4300streetcar (talk) 01:29, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@4300streetcar To clarify, two disambig pages already exist: United Airlines (disambiguation) and United Airways (disambiguation). Norco's objection seemed to be having a hatnote directing a reader towards those disambig pages. I wouldn't object to something other than a hatnote, I just want there to be something to direct readers to the disambig page in case they weren't looking for the US Airline. EducatedRedneck (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Having read the guidance at Wikipedia:Hatnote. The hatnotes as they are now with links to both disambiguation pages make good sense. It could be argued according to WP:NOTAMB (part of that guidance) that the United Airways link isn't needed because it isn't ambiguous at all, but it takes an inch of screen width so who cares? I strongly feel we should keep the United Airlines disambiguation. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:04, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

The airline flew 11 planes for nine years and ceased operations from Bangladesh a decade ago. There is no confusion. This is a solution in search of a problem, but some Wikipedians love overregulation. Norco3921 (talk) 10:15, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

But nevertheless an article exists and a disambiguation page that points at it 10mmsocket (talk) 10:37, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, it's interesting you're focusing on only one entry in the disambig page. China United Airlines is still operating. United Airways is still operating. And as for the others, just because something had a brief tenure (e.g., Office of Strategic Services) doesn't mean nobody will be interested in it. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:09, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, disambiguations for China United Airlines and United Airways Limited should be added also. Norco3921 (talk) 11:22, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

They're already on the disambig pages. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

How about United Van Lines or United Technologies? Norco3921 (talk) 16:17, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

If you think something should be added to the disambig page, go ahead and add it. Just beware of WP:POINT. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep as was the disambiguation as was was aligned to policy and is useful. Canterbury Tail talk 16:26, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  Fully agree. Nothing wrong with it was (which is as it is now). Excepting my comment about the United Airways link, but I won't die in a ditch over that, it was just an observation. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  Solution in search of a problem. Status quo for Wikipedians. Norco3921 (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  Not dissimilar to updating the fleet count every few weeks. I understand you don't think this is useful, and I understand that nobody else has agreed with you in this discussion. I also understand that you think updating the fleet total every few weeks is useful, but you don't see me pushing to forbid it just because I see it as pointless. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2026 (UTC)