Talk:Airline seat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Airlines WikiProject

[edit] Standing room section removed

This diff removed the section on standing room alternatives as "amusing trivia, but unecyclopedic". I disagree. The section was sourced from mainstream media, and has therefore in some sense been floated as an apparently serious idea. This was not some random April Fool's joke. That the idea of standing room did not gain wide acceptance (at least not yet) is true, but that the idea has been floated is clearly verifiable, and documented. I am uncertain as to what was "unencyclopedic" about that section. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts:

1. As I read the cite (including the two corrections), this is a silly non-story, based on a journalist's misunderstanding of the facts.
2. It doesn't really speak to the article topic, IMHO.

Any other opinions gratefully received. Happy to go with the consensus, naturally ... richi 10:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)