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 Norco123 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]
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)