Talk:Chiang Rai International Airport
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chiang Rai International 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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
International Routes
editThere is a discrepency in the article saying that it has "yet to be served by international routes", but it lists a route to Kunming, China. --Thomasdelbert (talk) 04:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Requested move
edit- The following discussion is an archived 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 moved. --BDD (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Mae Fah Luang – Chiang Rai International Airport → Chiang Rai International Airport – The page was previously renamed to Mae Fah Luang International Airport following a request by 27.55.141.32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who reasoned that the full official name was not the WP:COMMONNAME. However, "Mae Fah Luang" is certainly not how the airport is most commonly known, and I have reverted the move. The original argument against the full name might still stand, though, and it's probable that the airport is still more commonly known by its former name as Chiang Rai International Airport (though this could still be confused with the old Chiang Rai Airport, which Wikipedia says now serves as a military airport). I'm filing this request as an initiation of the WP:BRD cycle, and abstain from !voting. Paul_012 (talk) 11:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- Support. It is most recognizable for airports to be named after their city, if it is the single major airport for the city. Airport's official names tend to be far less recognizable. This appears to be the case here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2013 (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.