This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
King Phalo Airport article. This is
not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of the
Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of
open tasks and
task forces. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar and style: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked
To fill out this checklist, please
add the following code to the template call:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles
I have just modified one external link on
East London Airport. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comment You've demonstrated that some reliable sources use the new name, but has it become become predominant in common global usage per
WP:MPN? Searching for preponderance in news sources is difficult, as unusually there appears to be use of both in some articles without expressing a preference, and is further complicated as the airport is sometimes referred to as "East London" without adding "airport", similar to how "Heathrow airport" is normally called "Heathrow".
BilledMammal (
talk)
05:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)reply
You should take your complaints about reliable sources to
WP:RSP, not move requests. If the sources do not convince you, nothing will. I see no use in continuing to debate in circles.
I will, when I have time. For the moment, the concerns - provided with evidence - need to be raised. And the issue is that you haven't been able to demonstrate prevalence.
BilledMammal (
talk)
05:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)reply
If you do not have enough time to bring those complaints to
WP:RSP but you have raised them in multiple move requests, you should stop mentioning it in move requests or take the time to bring it up in
WP:RSP.
Desertambition (
talk)
05:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Support a couple searches show it's very clear news sources have referred to this as King Phalo Airport ever since the rename, from a wide multitude of sources.
SportingFlyerT·C13:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose. No evidence presented that the name has become predominant in common global usage as required by
WP:MPN. Searches suggest use is conflicted, with less reliable sources preferring the new name, and more reliable sources preferring the old name. Another discussion in a few years, when sources have had time to settle on which name they prefer, could be beneficial.
BilledMammal (
talk)
06:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.