Talk:National Airports System

Moved from "National Airport System (Canada)" to "National Airports System (Canada)", which is the canonical name for the policy. Mea culpa. --Patrick Bernier 15:19, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

Iqaluit Airport

Is Iqaluit Airport part of NAS? Not according to the official list. --Qyd 22:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If you click on the link on the left side of that page that says National Airports Policy you can see that it's a copy of the original 1994 document. That's five years before the creation of Nunavut. Also if you go to National Airports Policy it says that aiports in the NAS (other than provincial/territorial capitals) must have 200,000 passengers for 3 years or more and of course Montréal-Mirabel International Airport has no passengers at all but is still included in this article. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

annual traffic 200,000 passengers?

The rule "Any airport sustaining an annual traffic of 200,000 passengers or more for a period of three years will be added to the NAS. Any non-capital airport falling below this threshold for a period of three years will be removed from the NAS." seems to be contradicted by the list. Hamilton had 200,000 passengers as early as 2000 and had over 500,000 in 2006, but is not on the list, and Mirabel, with no passengers, is still there. Should the rule be removed? Langhorner 17:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No because it's sourced. If another TC source can be found that indicates the NAS (as opposed to the transfer program) then it could be added. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move.

This is the only National Airports System and "National Airports System" redirects here. I see no reason for the disambiguation in the title. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 11:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Agree. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Title would loose identity through this move, would be too generic. --Qyd (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

How is it too generic? It's a unique name. And for "losing identity", I am not sure how that is possible when using the actual proper name. What about the National Aboriginal Achievement Awards, the National Academy of Arbitrators, the National Alpine Museum, National Apprenticeship Act, National Air Services, National Air And Space Museum, National Air Traffic Services, etc. etc. Heck, even something like the London Philharmonic Orchestra is too generic, because it could be London, Ontario after all. The move is consistent with Wikipedia practice and norms. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be an extremely presumption to assume that Canada is the only country that has a national airport system(generic title). Ironically, most of the included airports are international. And yes, except the London one, I wouldn't have the faintest idea what the articles you mentioned are about (judging by the title). --Qyd (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Qyd and I often disagree on the need for and purpose of disambiguation. This is another one where we will have to agree to disagree.:) --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I did check using National Airports System before I suggested moving but couldn't find any other country using that particlular phrase. I think too that if there was another NAS then National Airports System wouldn't be a redirect here. It has less to do with identity but more to do with proper name and ease of finding. I am sure that most people looking for this by using the search function don't type in "National Airports System (Canada)". If there is a requirement for the word "Canada" to be included then Canadian National Airports System or Canada's National Airports System would be better than the current title. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 19:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support move from unnecessary qualification. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 17:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support per Royalguard. GreenJoe 15:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support - no need to specify (Canada) if there is no other NAS to confuse it with. DigitalC (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Disambiguation is only needed to eliminate duplicate titles and ambiguity. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - the (Canada) in the title is of some assistance to people caught in the incredibly weak WP search system, trying to find out something about national airports (WP search should just return "use Google" as a result). Contrary to CBW, the current parenthetical country is the more accurate title - official name / country qualifier. Beyond that, since it's "airports", not "airport", it will likely be some time until someone decides to write an article with that exact name and we have to dab it. Franamax (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP Naming conventions for government departments support referencing the jurisdiction's name in parentheses even if a generic-sounding name is technically unique, and though the NAS isn't a department per se, I feel there's a similar logic worth following. The Tom (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Agree : Dab distinction is unnecessary (unless, of course, another "National Airports System" appears). +mt 23:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been ongoing for three and a half months now. We're at 7 in support of the move, with two opposed and one weak oppose. Those in support generally seem to be of the view that disambiguation is unnecessary. The opposing reasons were varied -- the proposed title is too generic, Wikipedia has a weak search function and we should adopt the naming convention for government departments for this transportation infrastructure. Given that a solid majority favoured the move, I do not feel as though I am being bold in moving the article after all the time that has passed. Skeezix1000 (talk) 02:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.