Talk:Fort St. James (Perison) Airport
Latest comment: 5 months ago by Aviationwikiflight in topic Merger proposal
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fort St. James (Perison) Airport article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Merger proposal
edit- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The result of this discussion was to not merge the articles as both airports are distinct entities. It was pointed out that Fort St. James/Stuart River Water Aerodrome lacked notability, so editors may pursue a deletion if they wish to do so. (non-admin closure) Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Rather than duplicating the common history of the water aerodrome and the airstrip, which is included in the airport article, it would be simpler to merge the aerodrome article (which provides no useful additional information) into the airport one. DMBanks1 (talk) 01:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Opposed these are different places about two kilometres apart. Articles shouldn't have two separate infoboxes. One is a private water aerodrome and the other is a public airport, and are both operated by different groups. Neither appear to have a common history, which is why there is nothing in the water aerodrome. The correct thing would be to redirect Fort St. James/Stuart River Water Aerodrome to List of airports in British Columbia. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- After researching aviation in the vicinity, I reached the conclusion that the stand-alone float plane operations lacked notability. Consequently, it is impossible for this very slender stub to expand much beyond the present single sentence. I appreciate that the merger proposal could be misunderstood. A more realistic suggestion may be to just delete the stub article on the grounds of notability. DMBanks1 (talk) 13:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
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.