User talk:Jasepl/AirportNames

Other destinations with more than one airport featuring scheduled services (don't know if they should be on the list as well):

Copenhagen (Kastrup, Roskilde)
Georgetown (Georgetown, Ogle) (Note: it seems I am the first to consider Ogle Airport as the second airport of Georgetown and not simply an airport serving Ogle (is this a village?), mainly because TG has its hub there.)
Kinshasa (N'djili, N'Dolo)
Krasnoyarsk (Cheremshanka, Yemelyanovo)
Paramaribo (Zanderij, Zorg en Hoop)
Saint Lucia (Hewanorra, Vigie)
Santo Domingo (La Isabela, Las Américas)

Greetings, Belgian man (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Added meanwhile. Belgian man (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Also forgot Kingston, Jamaica (Norman Manley, Tinson Pen) Snoozlepet (talk) 05:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No disambiguation?

I think decisions have to be made about the following cities having two airports but of which no disambiguation is made when the biggest or only international one is meant:

(Copenhagen?)
Freetown
Georgetown
Kinshasa
Krasnoyarsk
Paramaribo
(Santo Domingo?)
and probably some others as well

What do the others think about the situation as she is now? For cases like Dominica and Tripoli, where disambiguation is only made if the airport lacking scheduled passenger services is meant, I think the present situation is satisfying. Belgian man (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As nobody reacts, I will disambiguate all names from now on. Greetings, Belgian man (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, action?

I think we have enough airports here (at least the most "problematic" ones), maybe we should reflect this decision in the destination lists in the airports' articles now? Slasher-fun (talk) 10:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jasepl and I are already applying the new names. Some other users, such as Kavs8 or Dekidxb, oppose strongly. I sent them here for talk. Edit warring is not the way to solve this problem. Greetings, Belgian man (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK with that Slasher-fun (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When this was discussed over the last number of weeks only a some users agreeed to the new format while the point of view from other users was not even considered and it was Jasepl what had the final say. A lot of users don't agree with the new format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.9.134 (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody had "the final say". We sent a message on the discussion page of all users who were reverting in one way or the other, discussed the pros and the cons during one week I guess, and finally just counted the votes. Slasher-fun (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that many users keep reverting to the "Ryanair names", so I have the impression consensus hasn't been reached at all yet. Belgian man (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Due to a lack of support and consensus, I will stop changing or reverting the Ryanair names into the smaller city's names until consensus is ever reached. Belgian man (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there's still some "sort of" discussion ongoing on the project discussion page (that I hadn't seen when I wrote this "now action" topic), but the people pro "Ryanair names" only seem to try to block the process of taking a decision as they're clearly a minority... (see above a great example: "A lot of users don't agree with the new format". I don't see that "lot of users"). Slasher-fun (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

J'étais un peu en train de devenir un paria en annulant chaque fois les changements opposés sur RIX, raison pour laquelle il me semble bon d'attendre quelque peu un consensus plus clair. Salut, Belgian man (talk) 07:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we'll ever get a consensus on that, since most Ryanair "fanboys" will never accept that WP could not play Ryanair's game regarding airport naming (see their edit comments: "Get articles on airports renamed first" when we are listing cities not airport, "obviously consensus is against" when there's only one or two people against, and I don't think that "Air passengers are recognizing Ryanair names of the airports, not the official ones" need to be commented... I think that all we can do is write a message on the discussion page of all the contributors involved here (pros or cons) to invite them to discuss and explain their opinions in an argumented way (if they can do that...), and finally get another vote, but I'm not even sure that a new vote with the same decision will make them stop... Slasher-fun (talk) 09:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been a vote on the topic already? Belgian man (talk) 07:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a formal one, but I counted the users pro and con, we had a 3.5 pro and 1 con Slasher-fun (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. You can change this 3.5 in 4.5 ;) Belgian man (talk) 08:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that somebody has decided to act... Slasher-fun (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! Belgian man (talk) 15:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Airport names

Please explain your decision to write the names of airports as being their physical location, not the name of the airport, nor the primary city served. Please show wiki policy guidelines to back that up. Olyus (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We never decided to use the physical location, we decided to use the primary city served whatever some airlines pretend it to be instead. The wiki policy guidelines could be those ones (especially #5), and maybe others. Slasher-fun (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It makes perfect sense to use the name of the city which it serves. You might as well rename Helsinki-Vantaa to Vantaa, never mind that for the vast majority of the passengers Helsinki is the destination/departure point. Same goes for Milan-Bergamo, which is located at about the same distance from Milan as Malpensa - the designation would then be Somma Lombardo. Following that logic, the names would become unrecognizable. If you go the physical location route, why use city names at all and not municipalities or provinces - there is no clear line here. Alepik (talk) 23:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finally somebody agrees with me. I also braught up the location of Malpensa and Bergamo which are both approx 45km from Milan. Jamie2k9 (talk) 01:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The offcial name of BGY is "Bergamo-Orio al Serio", and it is said everywhere in the PRs that it serves Bergamo, see the last PR for example. Helsinki-Vantaa airport code is "HEL", its official name is "Helsinki-Vantaa", it logically serves Helsinki.Slasher-fun (talk) 10:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Girona, Treviso, Bergamo are all province capitals on their own, Beauvais is not just a canton or arrondissement capital but the capital of the Oise department (which isn't even in Paris' Ile-de-France region), Charleroi is the largest city in all of Wallonia... This is a big differency with for example Vantaa, which is more like a sort of Helsinki suburb. It is very clear that the airports in Girona, Treviso, Bergamo, Beauvais and Charleroi are constructed to serve Girona, Treviso, Bergamo, Beauvais and Charleroi in the first place, whereas I would ask myself which airport serves Helsinki if HEL would be constructed to serve Vantaa. Belgian man (talk) 15:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: "We never decided to use the physical location, we decided to use the primary city served..." If so, I just want to bring to everyone's attention one example which denies your claims. Stockholm-Skavsta airport is a good one for that purpose. The airport handled around 2,5 million pax and serves mostly Stockholm as a second airport, as its name says and is clear to majority of people around the globe straight away, certainly not (only) small town of Nyköping, with some 27.000 inhabitants, as it appears from your recent changes. Does not make sense, does it? Dekidxb (talk) 21:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree for this one, Swedish AIP lists NYO as Stockholm-Skavsta, even if it's not obvious to me at all that an airport could serve a city 100km far from it. Slasher-fun (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]