Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Airports of Macau

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Category:Airports of Macau[edit]

This should be up-merged to Category:Airports of the People's Republic of China. Macau is an SAR but fully and completely part of China. Furthermore, there will never, ever, be more than one airport in Macau. The single airport they have is entirely built from land reclamation in the ocean. To support a category, you need a minimum number of articles. One ain't it. It's also NPOV but the minimum article category is enough. SchmuckyTheCat 01:28, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep. To repeat myself (copied from category talk:Airports of Macau), Macau is a special administrative region. Civil aviation is part of its autonomy, and it concludes bilateral aviation agreements on its own right. Flights from Macau to airports in mainland China are international flights. — Instantnood 08:34, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • How does this category make itself useful? "Categories should be on major topics that are likely to be useful to someone reading the article." Can a user click the category to find more airports in Macau? No. Can they click the category and find out more about Macau? No. Can they find out the definition of the word "of"? No. SchmuckyTheCat 18:54, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. I'm not an expert on China, so I'll just base my decision on the number of airfields. It doesn't make sense to have a cat for one or two of them. -Kbdank71 14:45, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am still undecided on this one, although it does seem strange to have a category which will never see a second entry for the foreseeable future.--Huaiwei 15:09, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or MERGE with HK. 132.205.45.110 20:32, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - one item does not a category make. CDC (talk) 02:57, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Weakly Keep for this category, and maybe suggested to merge with Airports of Hong Kong, then rename to Airports of Hong kong and Macau to containing more articles. Shinjiman 10:41, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment:  Is there any precedant for combining the categories of two related and geographically close entities? — Instantnood 16:09, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: I dont see why we need a precedent just to avoid doing this. Afterall, Current events in Hong Kong and Macao exists? ;) --Huaiwei 16:24, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • I did not say a precedant is a must. I just asked if there's any. If there is, it will be more reasonable to do so.
          Current events in Hong Kong and Macao was created later than British and Irish current events, i.e. the latter is the precedant. — Instantnood 16:53, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
          • Yeah...so when whoever created British and Irish current events, did he/she wonder if he was justified to do so because it was the first? I simply do not see why precedence has to be mentioned here at all.--Huaiwei 17:05, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Fine. Should I say I wanted to know out of curiosity? — Instantnood 17:20, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
          • As you wish. I just hope subsequent discussions dont keep ending up sweeping the floor when it comes to intellectual standards. The above is coming quite close to that.--Huaiwei 17:50, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: In fact, many of the subcategories of category:Airports are filled with only one article or two. To name a few, category:Airports of Aruba, Austria, the Bahamas, Bahrain, Brunei, the Cayman Islands, Kuwait, Singapore and Vanuatu. Some of the countries or regions may have more than 5 airports (including uncreated articles), but many have just one or two. — Instantnood 16:14, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I'm not going to jump into the who is in what and why argument here, but I'm curious as to your reasoning of why we should keep any category with one, even two articles. -Kbdank71 17:53, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • That's exactly what I am thinking. If the argument for deleting is because the number of articles categorised under it, these two categories are not the only ones. All the reasoning to these two categories applies to other categories. — Instantnood 18:37, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • Those categories should probably be deleted too. If Aruba, for instance, only has one airport, it's article should be floated up to the parent category. SchmuckyTheCat 18:48, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Did you mention Singapore? Dont worry. Singapore has a total of 7 airports and airbases today. You can be rest assured it will be filled up sooner or later. Meanwhile, how many of the above actually involves uncreated articles rather than the entire country having only one airport? And secondly, how many of them are not countries, and not overseas dependencies?--Huaiwei 16:20, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks for telling about Singapore. I am referring to Vanuatu. The article Transportation in Vanuatu says it has 32 (3 paved) as at 1999. Dependent territories are dependent territories, no matter overseas or not. — Instantnood 16:53, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
        • And Macau and Hong Kong are not dependent territories, but that is another story. You refering to Vanautu? You listed a whole bunch of categories...so how we know who you talking about? And as far as a check with CIA goes, only Aruba has 1 airport. Needless to say, Macau only has one too. No...that helipad dosent count. I am wondering you treated a helipad as a heliport!--Huaiwei 17:05, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't care whether you consider it is or not, and you don't have to agree with me.
        You didn't know which I am talking about because you didn't know much about the countries and territories I listed, other than your home town.
        And please tell me why that is a helipad but not a heliport. — Instantnood 17:20, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
        • Wow...this is getting close to a blow below the belt. I seek clarification, and btw, only Aruba has one airport out of all those listed above. And of coz, Macau has only one too, as far as the CIA is concerned. Meanwhile, it is a helipad, because they call it that themselves? [1] And of coz, dont think I didnt notice you edited all those categories again while these discussions are still on-going!--Huaiwei 17:50, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • If you were seeking for clarification, you were jumping several steps, and I apologise for having misunderstood.
        The Macau tourist office used "heliport" and "helipad" interchangeably on the web page you quoted. A google search of "heliport" on gov.mo gives 17 hits, 4 hits for "helipad", and 25 for "aerodrome". This document uses both "aerodrom" and "heliport". If you have been there, you could have told it's a heliport. Macau does have a helipad at a hospital. — Instantnood 18:37, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes...and you know the flow of the conversation is going to come to this...why are heliports being listed in airport categories? Now of coz this applies to ALL heliports...not just these in the above categories.--Huaiwei 18:58, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • And you know there I will say there's something to do with the definition of heliport. — Instantnood 19:16, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
        • And when we scroll down that page and click on the category "Heliports", what do we see?--Huaiwei 19:44, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • COMMENT, jetports, airports, heliports, airship fields are all aerodromes, so there may be a need to reform the WikiProject? 132.205.45.110 19:54, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete One? Rubbish! Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining! One isn't even a list. If your precious little country or province or whatever is so important then list it on the continent. MadreBurro 17:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, or merge with Hong Kong. Also, please stop adding new categories and stop requesting removal of categories before the dispute is resolved at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). -- Felix Wan 01:13, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Category:Airports_of_Macau&oldid=1145604983"