This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Invercargill 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 C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Have made small changes today to correct numerous spelling/grammatical errors & correct some factual errors. Article could use a rewrite & references. JimmahSky ( talk) 20:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC) JimmahSky 24/11/08
Are there any sources someone can add to the Today section? This section lacks citations.-- Anderson - What's up? 06:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I would like to point out that there are international stopovers in Invercargill during winter. The term Technical doesn't mean it's an international service.. Best,-- Anderson - What's up? 00:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Some months ago I deleted the referenced but verbatim detailed technical information relating to the airport. This information has been re-added. I have checked other NZ airport entries and only Chatham island and Tauranga(in less comprehensive form) have any such "operational information". The edit summary of the revert says suggests that the information is useful and that it has always been there. "Useful" is questionable how useful is this for Wikipedia? "Always" is not an argument. I suspect it would be much better to provide a link to the official airways information - rather than needing to keep this copied information up-to-date. Wikipedia is not the place people should be getting such critical information. Andrewgprout ( talk) 21:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I reverted a statement added without references to this effect with the example of Timaru. This was reverted back with the reason Timaru is not a city. This is a questionable point but I think I concur with a note on the Timaru page. I think it is safest to not say anything here or at least reword the statement to account for the possible ambiguity.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Invercargill 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 C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Have made small changes today to correct numerous spelling/grammatical errors & correct some factual errors. Article could use a rewrite & references. JimmahSky ( talk) 20:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC) JimmahSky 24/11/08
Are there any sources someone can add to the Today section? This section lacks citations.-- Anderson - What's up? 06:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I would like to point out that there are international stopovers in Invercargill during winter. The term Technical doesn't mean it's an international service.. Best,-- Anderson - What's up? 00:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Some months ago I deleted the referenced but verbatim detailed technical information relating to the airport. This information has been re-added. I have checked other NZ airport entries and only Chatham island and Tauranga(in less comprehensive form) have any such "operational information". The edit summary of the revert says suggests that the information is useful and that it has always been there. "Useful" is questionable how useful is this for Wikipedia? "Always" is not an argument. I suspect it would be much better to provide a link to the official airways information - rather than needing to keep this copied information up-to-date. Wikipedia is not the place people should be getting such critical information. Andrewgprout ( talk) 21:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I reverted a statement added without references to this effect with the example of Timaru. This was reverted back with the reason Timaru is not a city. This is a questionable point but I think I concur with a note on the Timaru page. I think it is safest to not say anything here or at least reword the statement to account for the possible ambiguity.