- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The result of this discussion was to merge. In any case most of the information worth retaining is already at the KLIA page. Joshua Talk to me What I've done? 04:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I propose that Klia2 be merged into Kuala Lumpur International Airport. Both are using of the same airfield but a different runaway and KLIA2 is simply a luxurious low cost carrier terminal. We do not have different articles for each terminal at JFK or Heathrow so there is no reason for us to do this just because it is advertised as a different airport (despite sharing the IATA and ICAO codes) Janj757 (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Kuala Lumpur International Airport consist of Main Terminal, Satellite A and klia2. Uniquely, this airport have two ATC and three runaway (one dedicated for klia2) but still share IATA and ICAO codes. Thus, klia2 merely a new terminal in KLIA. It shouldn't be regarded an airport. I second your idea to merge the article and delete klia2 page Tafeax (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- +1, it's just a terminal. Although I do have to point out that we do, in fact, have separate articles for Heathrow's terminals; not the greatest precedent though. Jpatokal (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that they should be merged. Satellite A and main terminal don't have their own page, although then the Aerotrain (KLIA) page probably should be merged into the KLIA page too. --Jamang1999 (talk) 12:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I disagree to merge Klia2 into Kuala Lumpur International Airport. Reasons being:
1. Both are known as airports, klia2 is not a new terminal, it is a new airport. News reports have clearly stated that klia2 is a new airport ("Malaysia’s new budget airport takes off" from http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/business/international/malaysia-s-new-budget/1092326.html).
2. klia2 is served with its own runway and air traffic control (ATC) with its own terminal, it should has its own page. They don't share any common facility.
3. The 2 airports are not linked with each other, but are connected with a train service.
4. Both airports have different IATA code (klia2's IATA is KUL 2).
5. Merging both airports on the same page will fragment Kuala Lumpur International Airport with a lot of details, which can lead to confusion to readers, thus defeating aim of Wikipedia.
6. Although klia2 was built to replace the former low-cost carrier terminal (LCCT), it is not a terminal replacement. The objective was to upgrade LCCT to become a new budget airport that could cater to more passengers. The very first idea was to build another airport in Labu, Negeri Sembilan as the current klia2 site was deemed to have some soil challenges.
7. If all arguments above are defeated, then we should fall back on precedence. Why are there separate pages for other terminals in other airports such as Terminal 5 Heathrow (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Heathrow_Terminal_5) which shares the same IATA code?
Thanks for consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- IATA's the authoritative source for this, and as long as the whole thing is covered by one airport code (KUL), it's one airport with two terminals. Jpatokal (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: Here's my stance on this: I would consider klia2 as a terminal to KLIA since they are extremely close together (hence, some cooperation is needed between both ATC towers despite being assigned different runways, which would have them acting as being a single airport) and they share the same IATA and ICAO airport codes (there isn't a separate code for klia2 as argued in point 4 above), as what most people have argued. However, there exist articles about individual terminals, such as for London Heathrow International Airport (see terminals 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5). In the Heathrow case, the articles have a decent size (except Terminal 5 which is larger) and they do not have any maintenance issues with them. So it does make sense for the seventh argument by 22.214.171.124 for this article to co-exist with the main KLIA page, provided that it has a decent size (which it does) and it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on articles, such as sourcing and notability, as well as guidelines set by the airport project.
- P.S. @126.96.36.199: For your fifth point above, there are many other articles (especially country and city articles such as United States and even good articles like Malaysia and Kuala Lumpur) that are larger that the size of KLIA as seen in their page histories. For your sixth point you haven't cited a source. Pizza1016 (talk | contribs) 03:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: An easier way to keep the article is just to use WP:GNG and find enough sources about it. We have a single article about London Heathrow Terminal 5 WhisperToMe (talk) 03:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
. I definitely agree to merge KLIA2 into the article KLIA. Reason 1- Outsider wouldn't know the difference of it and it'll be much easier and more convenient for us to view both of the airport. Reason 2- KLIA and KLIA2 is almost the same. It's just that one is a airport servicing full-service airline and one servicing low-cost airline. Reason 3- All other airports do merge all terminals together so we should also catch up with other countries, to make our airports much more easier to understand what is KLIA and KLIA2. THANKS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with merger of KLIA page with KLIA2 page. As discussed, IATA is the source for these informations. If control tower is the differentiating factor between an airport and a terminal, please refer to AIP published by Malaysian DCA. The aerodrome control services at KL International Airport are provided by air traffic control from Tower East, Tower West and Apron Control Tower, depending on the directions. KLIA2 does not have it's own airport code. Wokkiboy (talk) 04:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
A lot of the above arguments are for whether klia2 is a terminal or an airport, when it really should be about whether klia2 is notable enough to warrant it's own separate page, as per the general notability guideline. Whether being an airport or a terminal does and should not restrict its inclusion into Wikipedia. Pizza1016 (talk | contribs) 09:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.