Talk:Canberra Airport

Caution - contains propoganda!

Note that the Canberra Airport staff are editing this page to remove content they disagree with.

Several edits from 203.22.237.174 (mail.canberraairport.com.au) have removed large sections of the article.

This article should be removed totally if they continue to astro turf it.

Update: Caution!!!

203.17.154.218 continues to undo others' edits and introduce errors of fact and make unsubstantiated claims. Pdfpdf 03:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

International traffic

The article presently says:

The airport today can handle traffic from Melbourne International or Sydney International (Kingsford Smith International), where weather conditions restrict landings, and is the focus of a third major hub in South-Eastern Australia for international traffic.

Is this true (especially the last part)? --ScottDavis 15:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• I think you're right Scott. While the airport owners might aspire to one day being the 'third major hub for international traffic in SE Aust', there is very very little sign of any international traffic at Canberra 'International' (with heads of overseas Governments being the possible only exceptions. I think that even the Prime Minister leaves from Sydney when he goes on international trips. It's possible that Newcastle and Avalon receive more international traffic than Canberra. Canberra is capable of handling Boeing 747s and can handle traffic from Sydney or Melbourne, but I doubt that this happens very often, at least not for international flights. (I think that the last 747 to land at Canberra was carrying the Chinese President).

User:Adz 11:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I seem to recall I heard that the runway is long enough to carry large jets such as the 747, but it's limited width means that excesive garbage is blown off the grass on either side nesistating cleaning of the runway. Therefor the airport while technically able to carry 747s is not able to do so on a regular basis. I wonder if this information is available anywhere on the web, or if it is a load of badly remembered garbage? This is also mentioned in the Canberra article. Martyman 03:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

you may be right. A while ago, i think when Bill Clinton visited, the runway wasn't long enogh for 747s, so he had to fly here in some other sort of plane. Realising that this was an issue for heads of state, they extended the runway, and last year the presidents of the USA and China landed in thier 747s. ... but they may have needed to clear the runway first. I think the point you raise warrants some research. Maybe best to remove it from the main Canberra article for now and leave it in here until somebody is able to clarify it. Adz 04:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I've seen 747s (or whatever Air Force One is called) land and take off at Canberra. The length of the runway is more than ample for safe operation. I understand that the runway has been widened since privatisation and is able to carry 747s without debris fouling the runway. However, it seems that there may be various political games being played here. Both Bushs and Clinton visited Canberra in their jumbos, along with associated widebodies, but the Queen was denied permission to fly a chartered BA 747 in and out of Canberra in 2000, supposedly on safety grounds. Instead her aircraft landed in Sydney and she was flown to Canberra on one of the government's light VIP transports. I'll have to see if I can find a source for this.

It would be interesting to see how Canberra would cope with an influx of international flights if traffic were diverted from Sydney. The facilities for passenger handling, baggage handling and customs and immigration processing are quite inadequate for anything like a fraction of Sydney's routine capacity, quite apart from the problem of where to park the aircraft. --Jumbo 04:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

As of March 2006, the runways can land 747s - but each landing degrades the runway pavement, to the point where they can only land a limited number of 747s per year. They're expanding and upgrading the runways to be able to land 747s on a more regular basis. Source: http://www.canberraairport.com.au/pl_rw_mdp.htm 202.161.13.40 22:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Stub status?

This article currently has {{canberra-stub}} and {{Airport-stub}} at the bottom. However, it does not appear that this article is, in fact, a stub. It may be in need of some expansion, but i don't think it qualifies as a stub. If there are no dissenting voices between now and the next time i think of it (maybe a week) i will remove them. -- Fudoreaper 21:57:44, 2005-08-25 (UTC)

Looking at the definition of stub, it appears that 3-10 sentences are a standard, more for more complex articles. I'd say that this article passed stub status sometime back, as there is a reasonable amount of information. I'll remove the stub status next time I edit, as I'm planning on putting in some more information on history. --Jumbo 22:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Sounds fine, Jumbo. I'll leave this in your hand. :) -- Fudoreaper 01:57:44, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

Thanks! I've been looking at other articles and the Canberra International Airport site for information. I've asked CIA to review and possibly expand the article. More pictures and a logo would be handy. --Jumbo 02:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Its more than a stub. I'm happy for to to remove it. Adz 02:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

CIA response

I've had the following response from Canberra International Airport:

thank you for your email, which was passed to me for attention.

Let me first congratulate you on the effort you have obviously put into making the listing comprehensive and totally up-to-date.

The only slight error I can see in the entire listing is that Brindabella fly 3x daily to Newcastle and that they start next week a new daily (mon-Fri) service to Traralgon in the LaTrobe Valley.

I attach an aerial photo of the airport for your information. Unfortunately I can't help with the logo - we have a policy of not providing our logo externally.

Hope this is of assistance,

Alex Ananian-Cooper

Manager Aviation and Environment

Canberra International Airport

I'll upload the picture under the GFDL for the time being, but I would like guidance from others on the status of this image. --Jumbo 07:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Jumbo, I think the bast tag to put on the photo would be CopyrightedFreeUse --nixie 04:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, nixie. Bless you for that! This whole copyright business is a puzzle. I've modified the image accordingly. --Jumbo 04:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

That photo would definitely not be CopyrightedFreeUse (which is essentially the same as releasing it to the public domain) since the Airport has not agreed to allow the photo to be used for any purpose, including commercial redistribution and/or modification. The image should be tagged as Fair Use and moved from the Commons back to the English Wikipedia. Kaldari 22:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove canberra category

I've removed the Canberra category for this article as part of the effort to tidy up the Canberra/ACT categories]]. (See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canberra#Category:Canberra) It's felt that the Canberra category is too cluttered and that as it is a small jurisdiction, many of the articles relating to the City should probably sit under Category:Australian Capital Territory and its subcategories. If there is strong feeling that airports should contain the category that relates to the city they are in then perhaps this warrants some discussion, either here, on on the Canberra project talk page. Adz 07:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge Brand Depot

I have tagged the Brand Depot article to be merged with the Canberra Airport article at the Brand Depot page. I feel that the proposed development is not yet notable and does not warrant an article of its own. I think a mention here will suffice, at least until it is built, and possibly after the fact as well, depending on its notability when it is complete. -- Adz|talk 00:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Brand Depot

Brand Depot is independent of the Airport - probably best in my opinion to leave it separate, just as you would leave any other companies associated with the Airport separate.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Webfive (talk • contribs) .

But as an individual article it may not pass wikipedia's requirements for notability and therefore be deleted all together. Wikipedia is not a venue for free advertising. --Martyman-(talk) 07:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's just going to be a shopping centre, and not a big one. It's notability comes from the fact that it is situated on airport land and is consequently not subject to normal planning measures. --Jumbo 05:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Managed by...

According to the CIA website, it is managed by Capital Airport Group Pty Limited. --Jumbo 20:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Changes by 59.167.40.48 on 21 June 2007

I have felt it necessary to undo some of 59.167.40.48's changes because they are unsupported. I would really like it if 59.167.40.48 (or anyone else, for that matter) could reinstate them with supporting evidence. At the moment, they are simply opinion. I will reproduce them here so that reinstating them is easy.

During peak hour, there are intense traffic jams both within the airport and along the access roads - Supporting evidence?

- in this time commuters can spend up to 30 minutes. - Up to 30 minutes doing what?

In a recent state election it was a minor issue - with the incumbent supporting the development. The challenger, David Madew, failed to convince the electorate that the development was inappropriate. - When is recent? Presumably NSW election? Whose judgement is it that it was a minor issue? Who is the incumbent? What relevance has this got to the subject "Location"?

The proposed housing estates - That one is a fact!

the most contentious, Tralee, is under the departure paths of the aircraft and some arrival paths.

vs

the least contentious, Tralee, is considered by the Canberra International Airport group to be under the departure paths of the aircraft and some arrival paths (despite the development being nearly 10 km from the runway and the planes several thousand feet above sea level).

Ouch! Both are opinion!! How does this one get resolved!!!
BTW: There is no such thing as Canberra International Airport group. Canberra International Airport. Canberra International Airport Pty Ltd. Capital Airport Group. Capital Airport Group Pty Ltd. But no such thing as Canberra International Airport group.

My opinion is that "Accidents" should be a level2 heading, not level 3, and I have changed it accordingly.

I think the references are a bit messy. I've tried to tidy them up. Pdfpdf 12:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

More vandalism & propoganda

203.17.154.218 continues to undo others' edits and introduce errors of fact and make unsubstantiated claims.

I've placed information on that talk page, but have received no answer or acknowledgement, so now I've stopped being polite and I'm just reverting them. Pdfpdf 03:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

b737-476 incident

I have just read the Incident Report of the above indicent on the ATSB website (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2002/AAIR/aair200205179.aspx). The statement on the Canberra Airport page was inconsistent with the ATSB report, which I have corrected to reflect the ATSB report.

I note further that this is not an accident, but rather an "incident", as defined in the ATSB report. Hence, should this be moved to another heading "Incidents", or should it be deleted?

Also, while on this subject, it strikes me that this is an odd list of "accidents". There are two aviation accidents, one non-aviation accident and one incident (not an accident at all, by anyone's definition). If the level of accidents on airports are consistent with other airports of similar size, then it's likely that there are many more accidents than listed here, and hence this is an incomplete and somewhat arbitrary list.

Is there a policy on what is supposed to be done? I've looked at other Australian airport pages, and I can't find any listings of accidents! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.108.182.144 (talk • contribs) 01:49, July 19, 200 (UTC)

Good catch on the correction, and the heading of accidents regardless of an ATSB definition should stay. Most people understand the word, so as long as the content is written correctly it won't make a bit of a difference. As for the incompleteness of the list, if you have the time please feel free to add the information into the article. Perth_Airport#Accidents gives a good overview of how such content should be written and referenced. If you cite sources from ATSB investigation reports, please use Template:ATSBLink for this purpose. Thewinchester ^(talk) 03:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Canberra airport caught censoring this article

According to http://wired.reddit.com/wikidgame?offset=225#top an IP address traced to Canberra Airport has been editing this article to "to hide accidents, traffic chaos plus a general shining astroturf." The evidence is aparently at: http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=203.22.237.174&ip2=&ip3=&ip4= This isn't very cool behavior and would make the airport look really dumb if it was, say, confirmed and got into the Canberra Times. --Nick Dowling 08:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

March 2008 - Recent accidents and incidents and Proposed services

Recent accidents and incidents

There was a "Recent accidents and incidents" section, but I removed it because none of the incidents were recent.
So, what is wanted and/or needed? Pdfpdf (talk) 06:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The incidents are part of the history. Wikipedia should not be condentrating on the recent events, but should have an all of history approach. So any significant events from any time in the past should be included here. The article is not intended as a public relations tool for the airport. So my opinion is that the section should not include the word "recent" in its title. Incidents where people died should be included as being important. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point. However, this topic is covered inconsistently; e.g. Melbourne Airport#Accidents and Incidents mentions only one incident, Kingsford Smith International Airport doesn't mention any. Pdfpdf (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that's an argument for improving the coverage of incidents at other airports rather than removing those at Canberra. Gimboid13 (talk) 05:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree - it's not an argument one way or the other. It's just an observation that coverage is inconsistent, and addressing the use of the word "recent" in the title. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Despite the fact that there must be dozens of incidents, very few seem to have found their way onto WP pages about airports. This issue must have been discussed before somewhere. (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force??). I've posted a question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force#Incidents at Airports. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And, very quickly, I got a reply:

Accidents and incidents for Airport project

The Airports project has just agreed a form of words for the inclusion of accidents or incidents in airport articles. Thought it may be of interest -

• Accidents or incidents should only be included if:
  • The accident was fatal to either the aircraft occupants or persons on the ground.
  • The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport.
  • The accident invoked a change in procedures, regulations or process that had a wide effect on other airports or airlines or the aircraft industry.

MilborneOne (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidents at Airports

I've noticed that the reporting of incidents on WP pages for airports is very inconsistent. Are there any guidelines? Where can I find them? Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If you look a couple of lines above, the criteria for airport articles is listed. Also appears at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports. MilborneOne (talk) 10:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Pdfpdf (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed services

A number of people have removed this section, without explanation, except "Wiki ian" who said "remove unverified information". As the information has been there less than a month (in one case, 2 days) and was flagged with "citation needed", I believe "Wiki ian" is being a bit too quick off the mark. What do other people think? Pdfpdf (talk) 06:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say keep it there unless there is some reason to think it is incorrect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Destinations Table

Pdfpdf has raised some concerns about the Destinations Table. Firstly, in regards to examples of the table in use; Singapore Changi Airport, Melbourne Airport and Brisbane Airport to just name a few. In regards to why, well, it makes a lot more sense at multi-terminal airports, like those linked, as you choose whether to sort by terminal, or airline, or destinations. But even for CBR, it does have an aestetic and organisational advantage over plain flat destinations, as well as alphabetic sorting of airlines. So, after addressing Pdfpdf's concerns, I shall restore the table. Mvjs (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm. I'm unconvinced that the table adds any value for Canberra. Largely, for a one terminal airport like Canberra, it just looks stupid.

Regarding sortability, there's no terminal number variation to sort by, the table is already in sort by airline, and you can't sort by destination for two reasons: 1) you've switched off sort on that column, and 2) the data in that column is not in a useful format to sort.

But even for CBR, it does have an aestetic and organisational advantage over plain flat destinations, as well as alphabetic sorting of airlines. - I have no idea what you are talking about:

• aesthetic - Yeah, OK, the table looks a bit prettier.
• organisational - There's nothing to organise!
• alphabetic - It's already alphabetic!

So, after addressing Pdfpdf's concerns, - Pardon? You haven't addressed any of my concerns. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind Mvjs' table but Pdfpdf's table was good also however I didn't like the aesthetics of it. I also agree about the Terminal being useless since there is only 1. Bidgee (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't like the asthetics of my table either; I was referring to Mvjs' table vs the text that was originally there. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Changing subject - Can we delete that third column please? Pdfpdf (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Again for the record, I didn't create the table. It was created by http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canberra_International_Airport&diff=211426456&oldid=209995672

I agree that the terminals column should be removed. Mvjs (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Canberra International Airport → Canberra Airport — The airport is known as Canberra Airport on it's website, Government, media and the Airport itself (the building). The Airport also has no direct international flights —Bidgee (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support - The airport is known as Canberra Airport on it's website, Government, media and the Airport itself (the building). The Airport also has no direct international flights —Bidgee (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - After new facts have come to light (See Discussion4 at the bottom of the talk page) I now oppose the move. Bidgee (talk) 06:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - I have to disagree with you on the fact that the airport identifies itself as "Canberra Airport". The website, as well as the logo states "Canberra International Airport". Mvjs (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - At the time of adding the request the old site had Canberra Airport. Issue now is that it classes itself as a International Airport but has no International flights and the media class it as Canberra Airport. Bidgee (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - I think on the rationale that the website is Canberra International Airport as well as all the branding (I haven't been to CBR for a while but last time I was there the parking tickets had Canberra International Airport on them) we should honour that in the title of the article. Although it may be colloquial to simply call it Canberra Airport and even though there are no international flights, the airport's name is Canberra International Airport. It is common practice at a lot of airports to call themselves international when there are no international flights. (a great irony is Melbourne International Airport is a domestic airport in Florida, whilst Melbourne Airport is the international airport in Melbourne. Mvjs (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment - Last time I was at Canberra Airport was in December 2007. The Airport itself had Canberra Airport but I'm unsure about the tickets for parking. Bidgee (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment - The airport building is "labelled" "Canberra Airport" (refer Image:Canberra Airport.jpg), but I'm not sure what that means. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Contrary to my personal opinion that the name "Canberra International Airport" is both pretentious and undeserved, I'm afraid I must oppose the move because, quite simply, that is the "official" name of the airport. Like Mvjs "I have to disagree with you on the fact that the airport identifies itself as "Canberra Airport".". Pdfpdf (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • There is a stack of easy-to-find evidence:
    • The airport logo says "Canberra International Airport"
    • Look at any (every?) page on their website http://www.canberraairport.com.au/. At the top each page has the logo and the words "Canberra International Airport". At the bottom it says "Copyright Canberra International Airport"
    • Look at any issue of their newsletter "The Hub" http://www.canberraairport.com.au/ne_hu.htm
    • Similarly http://www.brindabellabusinesspark.com.au/
    • Etc.
    • Yes, it's interesting that the building is labelled "Canberra Airport" (Image:Canberra Airport.jpg), but so what?

Pdfpdf (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support - The name on the CASA site is C013 Canberra Canberra International Airport Pty Ltd 19/05/05
  It is Canberra Airport operated by Canberra International Airport Pty Ltd.--Soredewa (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Found another federal site referring it as Canberra International Airport. Aerodrome name could be different from an airport incorporating it. But I maintain Support for simplicity and majority. -- Soredewa (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think if they self-identify as "Canberra International Airport" then the article should be named "Canberra International Airport" with a redirect from "Canberra Airport". Arguments for using something but which the airport itself uses, which is prominent throughout their website on press releases and other documents, doesn't make a great deal of sense to me. If the airport is often called "Canberra Airport" then lets make that clear in the article but let's not rename the airport. Sarah 04:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - as per Sarah and others below. I find myself agreeing with much of what those who support the change are saying, but there is more than enough justification to leave the article name alone. Pdfpdf (talk) 06:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion1

• Comment - Thanks Soredwa, I wasn't distinguishing between the name of the airport (which I don't know), the name of the company that owns the lease (Canberra International Airport Pty Ltd), and the name of the company that operates the airport (Capital Airport Group Pty Ltd). As you imply, the "stack of easy-to-find evidence" is about the lease owner, not about the name of the airport. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • • Comment - I don't see where the ambiguity is coming from here. Mvjs (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment Bureau of Meteorology uses Canberra Airport. Bidgee (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

With respect, that's why we're discussing the matter. So far we have:

• Bidgee (Support) - It's "Canberra Airport".
• Mvjs (Oppose) - It's "Canberra International Airport".
• Soredewa (Support) - The company that leases the land is "Canberra International Airport Pty Ltd". Other sources suggest the name of the airport is "Canberra Airport".
• Pdfpdf (Don't know) - Yes, the name of the company that leases the land is "Canberra International Airport Pty Ltd". and they refer to it as "Canberra International Airport". But I haven't seen anyone else refer to it as "Canberra International Airport", and there are a number of other examples of it being referred to as "Canberra Airport", not the least of which is Australia Post. (And CIA P/L themselves "acknowledge" this on their own contact details page.)

Pdfpdf (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The logo clearly says "Canberra International Airport". Mvjs (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. So what? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

In the same vein, the sign on the wall of the airport clearly says "Canberra Airport". This is the exact opposite. But again, so what? Neither are "proof" of the name of the airport. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The title of the webpage as well as the top banner clearly reads "Canberra International Airport". The bottom of the webpage reads "Copyright Canberra International Airport". Have a look further up this page, in an email from the airport, the signature clearly reads "Canberra International Airport". Mvjs (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. So what? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

In terms of the CASA register, that lists SYD as "Sydney (Kingsford Smith) INTL" while, as it was determined on the SYD talk page, the name of the airport is simply "Sydney Airport". Mvjs (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. So what? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

While CASA might give up some aerodrome-catalogue name, the official name of the airport shouldn't be determined from that list. Mvjs (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that rather depend on what it actually is a list of? For example, (and I'm not saying that this is the case), if the list was a list of official airport names, then it would indeed be an appropriate list from which to get the name. (If.) It would seem to me that the crux of the matter is that we don't have a list of "Official Names", and some of "us" are trying to infer the "official" name from a variety of sources that, themselves, are not purporting to be such a source. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What exactly are you looking for here? Mvjs (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Good question! To whom are you addressing it? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion 1b

In the light of Discussion2 below, I'm going to follow Mvjs's lead and also ask: "What exactly are we looking for here?"

The proposal is to change the article name from Canberra International Airport (CIA) to "Canberra Airport" (CA).

This begs the questions: "Why?" and "Why not?"

There are lots of answers to both of these questions. But once we have those answers, where does that leave us? For example, you could look at all the answers and say: "So what?".

It would seem to me that we need a better question which would give us a more useful answer.

As a first pass, I suggest we try to answer the question: "What exactly are we looking for here?".

(Or perhaps it's easier to start with: "What are we NOT looking for?"?)

If you think this is a useful way to attack the problem, please add to the following list, and/or discuss what's on the list.

Note that words in the list in quotes are, at this stage, not defined. They will need to be defined before we pursue their use. Pdfpdf (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What exactly are we looking for here?

1. The "best" name for the page.
2. The "official" name of the airport.
3. The "popular" name of the airport.
4. The "most widely used" name of the airport.
5. The "most accurate" name of the airport.
6. etc.

Just to let you know my thoughts.

What exactly are we looking for here?

1. The "best" name for the page. - Canberra Airport would be best but the issue is should we use a official name. Jard one to pick.
2. The "official" name of the airport. - Issue here is we have on conflicting names on the official site.
3. The "popular" name of the airport. - Media uses Canberra Airport however some businesses (Rental cars, Brand Depot ect) use Canberra International Airport
4. The "most widely used" name of the airport. - I would say almost 50/50
5. The "most accurate" name of the airport. - I would say Canberra Airport since it's got no International flights. Bidgee (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that official name of the airport by the company is Canberra International Airport. I don't think any one can reasonably argue that the company call the airport officially Canberra Airport, any references to the airport as simply Canberra Airport on the website is a lazy writer. Just take a look at the website - what's in the banner at the top, what's in the title? The official name of the airport is Canberra International Airport - where convenient, that name is used. Maybe there wasn't enough plastic in the factory to carve out the word international for the sign. But it is clear at an easy glance that the name the company has given the airport is Canberra International Airport. I feel that it's more of a question of are we going to use the name that the company has named the airport or are we going to say, "Stuff the official name, some other organisations are lazy and call it Canberra Airport so let's use that." Here's an example of one page that lists both names. [1] - Canberra Airport in the headline but Canberra International Airport in the article. In terms of most accurate, the airport has operated international flights in the past and there's no reason why they wont resume in the future. Would we then go and rename the article Canberra International Airport when those flights resume? Mvjs (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

In terms of common use, here's some example of the airport being called "Canberra International Airport". [2] [3] [4] Mvjs (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the airport is listed in the White Pages as Canberra International Airport. I'm not going to try and link to it as the URL is a sham. Mvjs (talk) 01:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion2

• Comment Google News: Canberra Airport Google News: Canberra International Airport Bidgee (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Bidgee, what's your point here? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The majority of what "Discussion2" originally contained is irrelevant to the topic. The full discussion up to this point has been archived at Talk:Canberra International Airport/Archive#Discussion2. What remains above is the relevant bit.

Try this again. If you still don't understand please say so.

The Bureau of Meteorology uses Canberra Airport for it's recording station and not Canberra International Airport as a name. Using Google News to search for news sites that use Google News: Canberra Airport (A few news outlets use Canberra Airport within their articles such as the Canberra Times) or Google News: Canberra International Airport however no stories where found with Canberra International Airport in any articles by news outlets. Bidgee (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm confused by this which is on CIA(Canberra International Airport) which does have the CIA logo but also say Canberra Airport on the page [5]. Bidgee (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that there are plenty of easy-to-find examples of the place being called "Canberra Airport" (CA), but (with the exception of material produced by Canberra International Airport Pty Ltd - CIA P/L), it's very hard to find anything that calls the place "Canberra International Airport" (CIA).

Some examples of the use of "Canberra Airport" are:

• Australia Post (e.g. "CANBERRA AIRPORT ACT 2609")
• Bureau of Meteorology
• The sign on the airport building
• The CASA register
• Numerous newspaper articles
• Various parts of the CIA P/L website

Yes? Pdfpdf (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes to those above but there are a few sites that do use CIA ALP (Uses both CA and CIA). Also another link from the BoM (Bureau of Meteorology) [6] that has "CANBERRA AIRPORT ACT 2609" and the ABC NEWS uses Canberra Airport Bidgee (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. So where do we go from here? Pdfpdf (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion3

• Comment - http://www.canberraairport.com.au/contact.htm says Canberra International Airport Pty Ltd's address is:

Canberra International Airport

1/2 Brindabella Circuit

CANBERRA AIRPORT ACT 2609

I think this means that Australia Post thinks the land on which the airport is located is in an area named "Canberra Airport". However, that doesn't necessarily say anything about the airport's name ...

Pdfpdf (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You would find that Canberra International Airport Pty Ltd is usings it's company's name (Minus Pty Ltd) for the postal address and website. Bidgee (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but what about Australia Post usage? (I think you missed my point about the suburb name. And also my point that, even if that's what Australia Post call the land, it's still not necessarily the "official" name of the airport.) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not a suburb name! I've seen many times before that AustPost use a building's name rather then a suburb. Bidgee (talk) 12:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Pardon? "CANBERRA AIRPORT ACT 2609" is not a suburb name? Well then, what is it? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

2609 is used by Fyshwick, Majura, Piallio, Symonston. 12:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but you didn't answer my question as to why "CANBERRA AIRPORT ACT 2609" is not a suburb name. Nor did you tell me what it is. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"I've seen many times before that AustPost use a building's name rather then a suburb." - Really? Could you be a little more explicit and give some examples? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Parliament House, ACT 2600 is a building not a suburb but that how the mail is sent there. Bidgee (talk) 12:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess so. Although not a building, "University of Adelaide, SA 5005" is not a suburb either. Perhaps it is a "Postal Area"?

You've just answered your own question. Bidgee (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, we digress. How is this helping us determine the "official" name of the airport? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Australia Post now lists the postcode 2609 as Canberra International Airport. Additionally, the lack of international flights does not necessarily determine whether an airport is international or not, but rather it is more often the existence of customs and/or immigration facilities at the airport which determines whether an airport is international. CBR has these facilities and as such it is an international airport. As to the name, leave it as Canberra International Airport with the redirect of Canberra Airport to point to this article. --Россавиа ^Диалог 04:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion4

Comment ... Additionally, the lack of international flights does not necessarily determine whether an airport is international or not, but rather it is more often the existence of customs and/or immigration facilities at the airport which determines whether an airport is international. CBR has these facilities and as such it is an international airport. ... --Россавиа ^Диалог 04:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if CIA has customs or immigration. Some links/sources could be handy if you have any as it could go into the article. Something of interest http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/international/icao/desig_airports.aspx . Bidgee (talk) 04:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is interesting. (Isn't it? Or do I just need to "get a life"?) Pdfpdf (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The definitions of the terms used can be found at http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/international/icao/index.aspx Pdfpdf (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

In particular: "The categories of airports are:

Major International

airports of entry and departure where all formalities incident to Customs, Immigration, Health and similar procedures are carried out, and which are open to scheduled and non-scheduled flights;

Restricted Use International

airports of entry and departure at which the formalities incident to Customs, Immigration, Health and similar procedures are made available on a restricted basis, to flights with prior approval only;

Alternate International

airports specified in the flight plan to which a flight may proceed when it becomes inadvisable to land at the airport of intended landing;"

(The quoted table classifies Canberra as "Restricted Use International" and "Alternate International".)

Pdfpdf (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Some thing else that now could be added to the article to explain why it has International status. Bidgee (talk) 06:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Are you offering?  ;-) Pdfpdf (talk)

Added. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion5

I am afraid that it is a bit off-topic: whether an airport is international (de jure or de facto) is irrelevant to the main argument: "Which name is appropriate as the name of this article?"

Many Australian airports which handle scheduled flights do not call themselves international.

On the other hand, there is a clear statement "The Hobart International Airport is operated by Hobart International Airport Pty Ltd (HIAPL). " HBA official website

On the CIA P/L website, the "phrase" "Canberra International Airport" appears almost always in the way readers cannot distinguish CBR (airport) from CIA P/L. In fact, the website looks like trying to mislead readers the airport name is "Canberra International Airport" without claiming that it is, or should be called so. --Soredewa (talk) 04:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh huh. But I'm not sure what your point is?

Agreed that the main argument should be: "Which name is appropriate as the name of this article?"

You seem to be saying: "The CIA website doesn't make it clear what the airport's name is." Is that correct?

If so, that doesn't seem to have much relevance to: "Which name is appropriate as the name of this article?". Does it?

(Yes, I'm confused.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that Discussion4 could have been a off-topic.

I wished people rather continue Discussion4 using my input than separated as Discussion5.

"The CIA website" could be misleading. It is the "CIA P/L" website.

Who has the true authority to name the airport?

The name by it would be the "official / formal" name. But it does not necessarily assume the article name.

In 1998 when I skydived from CBR, the driver of the pick-up van of the skydiving operator said "now we are arriving at Canberra International Airport."

I don't think her tongue was controlled by the airport operator. --Soredewa (talk) 05:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion4 explains somewhat on why it has International status which means the article should stay how is. I don't agree with it however the source in Discussion4 and the owner of the airport (CIA) over rides my thoughts Bidgee (talk) 06:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Soredewa: I'm still confused by what you're saying; it doesn't seem to have much relevance to: "Which name is appropriate as the name of this article?".

I agree with Bidgee that Discussion4 was about the International status. It's just that I don't see how Discussion5 is related to Discussion4. (I'm not saying that it isn't; I'm just saying I don't see the relationship.)

You say: "My concern is that Discussion4 could have been a off-topic." - I would prefer to classify Discussion4 as being about a related topic, rather than "off-topic"

Then you follow with: "I wished people rather continue Discussion4 using my input than separated as Discussion5." - I'm afraid I don't understand. Which input are you refering to? Your input which is now at the start of Discussion5? If so, well, it seems like a different topic to me. (i.e. I don't think you have very much interest at all in whether Canberra has international status. I think your interest is on what the name of the article should be. i.e. a different topic. Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my inputs are to follow Discussion3 rather than Discussion4,

somewhat contrary to Россавиа. --Soredewa (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Stocktake

The "Survey" section above now says:

• Oppose - Bidee
• Oppose - Mvjs
• Support - Soredewa
• Oppose - Sarah
• Oppose - Pdfpdf

That looks pretty close to consensus to me ... Pdfpdf (talk) 07:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Sounds like a consensus to me. Mvjs (talk) 07:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)