The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Rename or something. This category includes airports that are proposed, planned or under construction. Proposed airports may or may not be built and those under construction are likely to be completed and are clearly not proposed. I don't know if a split is appropriate or a rename, but I think including all three of these in one category is confusing and inaccurate. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Splitting the category would require more maintenance to move articles from Proposed to Planned etc. A rename might result in an unwieldly long titleme. The current category may be the "least worst" option. DexDor (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC) (corrected DexDor (talk) 07:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
But since we already have Category:Buildings and structures under construction the tree is already in place. And keeping the current name with the current introduction makes the title inaccurate or more likely wrong for a number of the articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I think. Airports take a long time to plan and build. The difficulty with those that are meerly "proposed" is that they may fall under WP:CRYSTAL. However these are major infrastructure projects and worthy of an article (and hence of a category) as long as the proposal is not too nebulous or made by some one who has little hope of bringing it to fruition. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even if they are never built in our lifetimes, these are important & encyclopaedic proposals. We are not proposing deleting the pages, so the category remains relevant.Ephebi (talk) 08:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would you object to changing the introduction to limit this to only proposed airports? After all, under construction is well beyond and totally different from proposed. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
sounds sensible. Like proposed roads, some of the proposed airports will never be built (e.g. Maplin Sands?) although the process they went through is still relevant.Ephebi (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - with the caveat that "Proposed" means "proposed", not "under construction", and not "cancelled" - the former would be categorised the same as any other airport, the latter, in Category:Cancelled airports. - The BushrangerOne ping only 01:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. OK, this is an odd one. We have this category for proposed expansions, but no category for actual expansions. One could argue that at some point, every airport has had expansion proposed which would make this category grossly incomplete or totally non defining. If kept, what makes an expansion defining? Adding a new runway? Adding a new control tower? Increasing the size of the apron? Increasing the size of the screening area? Adding a ticket counter position? Also, of the articles included, only one here is actually about a specific expansion. The others are the main airport articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This category should be for articles specifically about expansion and (as said above) there's currently only one such article. The other articles should be removed from the category. I'm neutral about whether to delete the category or not (it's a valid category, but not that useful and seems to attract airport articles). DexDor (talk) 08:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is a misuse of category space for airports where an expansion is (or may be) proposed. It the category were to exist, it ought only to include articles on the expansion projects, rather than (as present) ones on the airports generally. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per valid arguments above. Ephebi (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-defining temporary state of an airport unworthy of categorisation. - The BushrangerOne ping only 01:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
