Talk:CAAC (airline)

(Redirected from Talk:CAAC Airlines)
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Colin M in topic Requested move 2 February 2022

Requested move 2 February 2022

edit
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. There is no consensus around the degree to which the current title satisfies WP:COMMONNAME (or WP:NATURALDIS). A future discussion might be more productive if it includes evidence of RS usage. (closed by non-admin page mover) Colin M (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply


CAAC AirlinesCAAC (airline) – I'm not sure whether the word 'Airlines' comes from a reliable source or if it's just a made-up name but it seems made-up here as almost no source refers it to as CAAC Airlines but just CAAC. I think that the name should be CAAC (airline). 27.56.146.28 (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

planespotters.net is not a reliable source to use. And CAAC Airlines just seems to be a made-up name here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.177.59.55 (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
Okay, but surely it's not correct that the aviation administration and its division are both referred to only by the same name "CAAC". The sources that use "CAAC" alone are probably referring to the aviation administration as a whole. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Andrewa: Could you possibly provide sourcing that CAAC Airlines was the common name and not just a made-up name? Even I prefer wp:natural disambiguation but to prove that it isn't a made-up name, is there any source which refers it as CAAC Airlines?
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.