This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This title is a bit messy. If nobody objects, I'd like to move this page to either Manchester Airport (New Hampshire) or Manchester Airport (NH) or Manchester Airport (US). Ttownfeen 18:25, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
The gate information may be a bit difficult to maintain over time. Does gate information add to the encyclopedic value of this article? Tobycat 16:53, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Airlines to where, but gate is probably useless. You can pull as desired. Burgundavia 01:05, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
I'm pulling the gate notations (haven't seen it being noted at other airport articles). Plus, one can find the gate upon arrival at the airport. Pentawing 05:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Over 70% of the Manchester Airport lies within the municipal boundaries of the Town of Londonderry.
I've just added quite a bit of the airport's history, from the airport's website history page. Please tell me if I get anything wrong or left anything important out, not being from the immediate area of the airport. Thanks. --KPWM_Spotter 17:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Please see the two discussions on the WP:AIRPORTS talk page on the issue. As long as DL and NW are operating under seperate certificates, they are to be listed seperately. This has been discussed and decided. Thanks! Cashier freak (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: not moved. DrKiernan (talk) 15:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Oppose: this is not the place to change the MOS. Apteva is creating making multiple move requests rather than proposing the change on the MOS talk page where it belongs. — kwami (talk) 06:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Oppose As mentioned above, the correct place to discuss this is at WT:MOS. You might actually get some traction there, instead of trying to do everything piecemeal. Hot Stop(Edits) 12:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Oppose – the en dash is correct per WP:MOSDASH and as corroborated in multiple reliable sources. Dicklyon (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
This page was recently and without any discussion inappropriately moved from Manchester-Boston Regional Airport with a hyphen to Manchester–Boston Regional Airport with an endash. The overwhelming evidence is that airports are spelled with a hyphen, and it is my recommendation that it be moved back to Manchester-Boston Regional AirportApteva (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
The en dash is what MOS:DASH appears to support, and is not at all unusual in sources. See for example these books: , , , and journal articles such as , , . Some sources also use space and some use slash, which are generally signs that the hyphen is recognized as not signaling the intended relationship, which appears to be about a Manchester version of Boston, or something like that. Dicklyon (talk) 05:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
The MOS does not establish titles, WP:TITLE establishes titles. MOS has enough to worry about. Interestingly there are 71 pages in the MOS and 71 pages in WP:TITLE. Are those the only sources available, or the only ones with an endash? Which is used most often, hyphen or endash? Which does the FAA use? Which does the airport use? Apteva (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
TITLE covers substance, MOS covers style. They complement each other. This is a matter of style. The move was appropriate per ENDASH. You've already stated that we should not follow the FAA (or rather, that we should follow it in some things but not in others, according to your personal preferences). The airport itself uses a bullet: "Manchester•Boston". Clearly a stylistic choice, invoking the MOS, not a different name invoking TITLE. — kwami (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
The airport website also uses "Manchester•Boston Regional Airport" whatever that is, but in the schedule of events, Manchester-Boston Regional Airport is used. Apteva (talk) 05:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Exactly! Which just goes to prove that they consider those to be a difference in style rather than different names. — kwami (talk) 06:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually it is likely the bullet that is the "style" and if anyone looked up the actual name it would be with a hyphen. But by using a hyphen on their website they are indicating that an acceptable spelling whether official or not is a hyphen. If they thought an endash was an acceptable spelling they certainly could have used one - and evidently think that a hyphen is correct. "On April 18, 2006 The airport is officially renamed Manchester-Boston Regional Airport." (with a hyphen) The word official means that is what it is. We often deviate from the official when the common is much more common than the official, but have no reason to use a name that is neither the official name nor the most commonly used name. As an encyclopedia, we sometimes choose the official name instead of a much more commonly used name, simply because we are an encyclopedia, and are expected to be correct. Such official vs. common name discussions are frequent. We do not need to be also having discussions about how a name should be styled. A name is a name. If something has a name, use it. If something does not have a name, and text is used to describe it, that is where grammar and style come into play. "Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names." Apteva (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
There is a good point to be made there about official and common usage evidence, but you've missed it. If you want to show that someone has decided that a hyphen is better than an en dash, you need to show that in the context of a style that uses en dashes for some things, but not for others. If you point at a web site or a book that never uses en dashes for anything, then they are not making any decisions about the choice between hyphen and en dash; that is the typical case for web sites, and the case for the page you linked, which even uses " -- " for em dash, which is not an indication that they decided than an em dash would be inappropriate there. Therefore, your statement "If they thought an endash was an acceptable spelling they certainly could have used one" is complete nonsense with respect to the linked site. Look in travel books, where you can see lots of evidence that actual human editors have decided the en dash is best in the context of a publication that cares about typography as a part of communicating clearly to readers (examples are linked in my comment at the start of this discussion). Dicklyon (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
An official name is an official name. A common name is the most commonly used name. It takes time but it really is not that hard. Find out who owns the airport and find out the official name they gave the airport when they changed the name in 2006. Count how many sources use one spelling or another to determine the most common name. And notice that the MOS has exactly nothing to do with deciding the name to use. Apteva (talk) 05:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
But we all agree what the name is, so that issue is irrelevant. The airport has demonstrated that the punctuation is not part of it, as has been pointed out to you over and over and over. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is not an argument. — kwami (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Agreed - I live nearby, and can assure you that the airport's official signs and tickets and stationery use a variety of punctuation; if you want to count them, be my guest, but the airport has no set size or shape for the little blob or ink or clump of pixels between "Manchester" and "Boston". There is no official punctuation, period. (Ha! get it?) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 10:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.