Talk:Berlin Brandenburg Airport

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Berlin Brandenburg Airport article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 90 days

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Germany Start‑class High‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Aviation: Airports C‑class

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

C

This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the airport project.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Revert that makes little sense to me

Hi. Could someone please explain this revert? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewgprout: You are invited to lay out your reasoning on this here talk page. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobbitschuster: Hi - the first part of your change I didn't really object to and I agree is probably the situation, but is not referenced at all and it WP:HIJACKed the existing established reference both of these situations are bad. The second bit about busses is also unreferenced, but mostly it does not actually say anything, Wikipedia is about certainty - such wishy washy statements like this are not encyclopaedic. Find something solid to say properly referenced and you should not encounter any resitence to what you add. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Passenger projections

"With projected annual passenger numbers of around 34 million". Surely this figure is now totally unrealistic given the pandemic. The airport will not get anywhere near that busy for years or decades. Should it be phrased less enthusiastically in the article? --212.112.149.60 (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should be indicated that the source was written prior to Covid-19 and it is now not clear when such figures will be reached... Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Need for Brandenburg addition?

Hi all, I was wondering if it's still useful to keep adding the Brandenburg addition while nowadays it's the only operational airport in the Berlin region? I think it's better to "just" name the airport "Berlin" in Ailines and Destination charts and the Airports in Germany table. To me it seems only logical to hold on to such an extra naming when there are multiple airports in thesame city (e.g. London, Paris etc.). Best regards, (Luukmlgn (talk) 11:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC))[reply]

I agree. Berlin should be enough. Komischn (talk) 18:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:COMMON name if anything would be Brandenburg airport not Berlin airport. That said, I suppose having the full/longer name and because the numerous/various other airports I think the specificity is necessary. Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Long Timeline Section

Now that the airport is complete, having such a long and verbose Timeline section doesn't seem to fit as well into the main article. It was much more relevant when the prolonged construction was ongoing and making headlines, but now I think it makes the article overly long and adds a lot to scroll through between the lead sections and a lot of the useful information of the article.

I'm interested in either splitting the timeline section into its own article ("Timeline of Berlin Brandenburg Airport's construction" or something along those lines) or putting the timeline information into some sort of collapsible format. Thoughts? Titan Andromeda 01:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support splitting. The article is far too long anyway, and the construction of this airport really is its own subject at this point. Renerpho (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge the de-wp has a separate article on the construction of BER, so splitting this out sounds like a good idea. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

So I was thinking that Berlin Schönefeld Airport could be merged into this article since it turned out that the entire airport (with the Schönefeld terminals becoming Terminal 5) was integrated with the new airport to the south (albeit briefly in the case of Terminal 5). Image2012 (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep them seperate. It is perfectly reasonable to deal with both as seperate entities divided mostly by time. That is the way all sources do it. Andrewgprout (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support, two articles for the same facility is stupid. Schonefeld has closed just like Tegel and Tempelhof, so having an article for a defunct airport is unnessecary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.cal.69 (talk • contribs)

Oppose, on the grounds that this article is already (too) long, and rather needs a split than a merger. If the two topics were one article then splitting them would have been a good idea. Renerpho (talk) 05:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I just noticed there was a split proposal a while ago (see previous section), with my supporting vote as the only feedback. Maybe we should consider to go ahead with this split? Renerpho (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, Two different characteristics. Berlin Schönefeld Airport is the historic East-Berlin airport that has had its day, whereas BER is the brand new post-unification airport. Alandeus (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- SXF has been operational for 30 years as a unification era airport. --chinneeb-talk 08:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - These thirty years can be considered as a transitional period. BER has been designed as the new airport for the unified Berlin.Alandeus (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support, merge both articles into one and pare it down. Having two very long articles for the same runway and building complex is confusing and pointless. Lexlex (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, Schönefeld is an old airport with a history stretching back to 1934. While BER uses Schönefeld's facilities, it uses it as its Terminal 5, in a peripheral role. And it's closed down, apparently --chinneeb-talk 08:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Schönefeld had a northern runway that was shut down in the course of construction of BER while the southern runway of BER was added for BER. Also, the terminal building is completely new and the IATA code changed Hobbitschuster (talk) 07:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose That's like saying we shouldn't have an article on Prussia because "it turned out" to become part of Germany. It also looks likely that the use of Schönefeld's facilities as "BER Terminal 5" may end up totalling 4 months, rather than the planned 10 years. - IMSoP (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose BER has not been "made out of" SXF, the latter has been partially integrated. The BER article is already very long, also SXF has a distinct individual history and development. Large parts of it have been incorporated into BER but as parts of a newly revised structure, not as an expansion - SXF has been heavily modified land and airside as part of this.

Oppose While the airports are intricately linked to each other, users searching them expect very different results. We currently have Airports of Berlin which consolidates all the different airports and makes transparent that Tegel/Schonefeld closed in favour of Brandenburg airports. Despite the other three airports not being functionally used as airports, they're still open/used for vaccine distribution, public park etc. and thus will continue to be updated. Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The new airport has a distinct history from the old airport, a new terminal, and a different IATA code. If the articles were combined, we would probably find that there would be demand to split out the history into a separate article anyway. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just noticed that this same merger was proposed back in 2006 and again in 2008. The result of both discussions was to keep the articles separate. I believe this proposal has also reached the same consensus, so I am going to close the proposal. - IMSoP (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]