Jump to content

Talk:Neuville Airport/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Please stop edit warring on this page.

Neuville is a small village of 3000 so if there was a 2000 names petition and a demonstration with 600 persons, I think we can say the opposition is trong and not just a few like the other contributor would like to write. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jstrob (talk • contribs) 22:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The article needs to stay neutral on the controversy surrounding the construction and I have reverted attempts by other editors to remove the whole opposition section. However, some of your edits are not improving the article either. To go through them point by point:
  1. You removed the link to the official site from the infobox, external links section and as a reference. You can't do that. It is standard to have that link to the official site when one exists.
  2. Replaced a dead link with one to a picture but there is nothing there to indicate where that was taken. I searched the www.neuvillesansbruit.com site and replaced it with an article.
  3. You changed few to strong but neither one is neutral or referenced. It should just indicate that there is opposition but without a reference it should not say either way.
  4. "March 31, 2012 when about 600" was changed to "march 31 2012 where about 600". In English the months of the year are always capitalised and the word "when" works better in this context.
  5. The [] were removed from several references leaving bare url links. They should not be removed.
  6. You replaced a dead link (montrealgazette.com) about the protest with one that works (lapresse.ca). That improves the article.
  7. You changed "was created" to "is created" but that does not work in English.
  8. The references to the blog and the Facebook page were changed to inline links. Inline links are normally removed and replaced as references.
  9. You changed "runway, a few hundred feet away as" to "runway, at a few hundred feet only as". That isn't good English. The first is correct.
  10. Changed two residents to a few that are suing but the reference only shows two.
  11. You added "Transport Canada is pretending" but the reference you used does not say that.
  12. You changed New Democratic Party of Canada to New Democratic Party. However, that is just a disambiguation page listing New Democratic Parties around the world.
  13. You changed gained to gain but gained is the correct word.
  14. "2,000 Canadian" became "2000 canadian" but the standard on Wikipedia it to have the , in numbers over a thousand and Canadian is always capitalised.
  15. References always come before external links.
  16. The default sort template was removed for no reason.
I have merged in some of the material you added in an effort to keep the article neutral. I would also point out that it takes at least two people to edit war, not just the people reverting you. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi CambridgeBayWeather, I totally agree with your last version. I think it is now neutral and well written. I just removed one of the link about the 600 person demonstration that was coming out 2 times in the same sentence now. And I corrected a small typo Nuvillois => Neuvillois. Thank you very much for your work. And I'm sorry for all my mistakes.--Jstrob (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm glad it all worked out. Just need to keep an eye out for people trying to remove the material. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Header added by user Bouchecl

Hi. I think the header added by user Bouchecl is inapropriate. I think it is very important to note that this airport is very new and small but it is known across all Quebec because of the controversies it has created. So the main point talking about it here is the controversies. User Bouchecl was recruited by a pro-aviation writer to try to rewrite the neuville airport article in french but his draft is really not neutral.

For example if we talk about Al Capone we will not start a lenghty story about what he eats or what he does as a hobby, we talk about what he is known for: his criminal activities. If we talk about asbestos we will mainly talk about the diseases it causes, If we talk about Neuville airport it's kind of the same thing, we will talk about the controversies, for what it is known for. For sure some pro-aviation militants will not like it but that's the reality.--Jstrob (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Editor Jstrob is in WP:COI (see here for instance) and has engaged in edit warring in the French version of this article, repeatedly reverting good faith edits by other editors without due respect to the WP:3RR. So much so that the French version of this article is now in full protection mode, at least until tomorrow.
As for the substantive issues raised by the {{multiple issues}} banner, I will point out that on 16 sources, only six would qualify under WP:RS. Here's the full breakdown.
  • Government publication (1)
  • News medias (5, 11, 12, 13, 15)
  • Youtube (6, 10)
  • Opponents' web site (2, 7, 14)
  • Facebook (8)
  • Promoters' web site (3, 4)
  • Unrelated association (9)
  • News release from an opposition Member of Parliament (16)
As it currently stands, the article only documents opposition to the airport and is far from being neutral. Editors and readers should be aware of this. Bouchecl (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
User Bouchecl is also in conflict of interest and has repeatewdly attacked me personnaly(see here) (a new user WP:DNB) for mistakes I did at the beginning and and for which apologies. Instead on relying purely on argument to make his point he is still here trying to attack me personally. If we talk mainly about the controversy as I explained above it is because the subject is known and talked about in the medias as a controversy vector. Like asbestos, like al Capone. For sure pro-aviation lobbyists want to remove all controveries about airports. But Wikipedia has to show the truth about all those controversies. About my sources I think they all qualify as the perfect source for every information they bring. and most of all those sources are essential to understand the controversy we are talking about. I would also point out I'm not the only writer on that article as you seem to think.--Jstrob (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
It's up to the readers and editors to decide what's appropriate or not using the five pillars and the numerous policies put in place by the community over the years. As for WP:DNB, an editor who has contributed to enwiki for ten months doesn't exactly qualify as a newbie and should be perfectly aware that POV-pushing and conflict of interests are frowned upon here. By the way, the fact that you know about policies such as WP:DNB defeats your newbie argument... Bouchecl (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
It's also up to the reader to determine if someone is of bad faith or counterproductive. You know I just wrote a few words last year and that I just started wrtiting again a few days ago. I know about DNB because I just read about it. I didn't know how the whole dynamic of wikipedia works in regards to people like VienneauLuc (your friend it seems) who started to repeatedly revert my writings without any discussion. Now I know how to do it. I only have around 15 hours of activity and you know it. Please stop your personnal attacks now and get out your arguements about how we should present the subject.--Jstrob (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
The truth is that you will not find any credible source to get information about this airport except about the controversy it created. Every newspaper talking about this airport talk about the controversy. Why? because the promoters of the airports decided to build this airport without the consent of the people, without the consent of the mayor and without the consent of the province. They decided to create this controversy and now they have to live with it. If they are your friends, just tell them! Why should the wikipedia article about Neuville airport be different from all the literature written about it? Please answer this without any personnal attack if you can.--Jstrob (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Maybe you're not familiar with the article's history feature. You should read the history of this article where all the gory details are duly recorded. You've edited this pages in April 2012, where you engaged sock puppets. Back then, you were warned about COI. In September, you've edited again and reverted material not to your liking. In this present editing stint, you removed the Airport website from the infobox, removed citation templates, engaged in a series of reverts with CambridgeBayWeather and warned by TBrandley to bring your issues to this Talk page. You reverted him too. I rest my case. Bouchecl (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Again a lot of effort on personnal attacks from Bouchecl and not a single logical argument! When will he receive warning from a moderator for those personnal attacks? If you look carefully at the history you will see the first contribution I did when almost nothing was written, was just adding info and correcting mistakes. I was reverted the first then by some pro-aviation contributor. Here too. And the first protection was for MY version that was judged the best by the moderator. If yor pursue your personnal attacks you are just getting your case worst and worst.--Jstrob (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Past edits on a page doesn't constitute a personal attack and is perfectly in line with the lead sentence of the recommandation: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." Bouchecl (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
It seems to ME that you are talking more about ME and what I did in the past than about the present content of the article and what could be changed to make it better and neutral.--Jstrob (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Could you both please stop going on at each other and address the article. First of all I have no French and have to rely on Google Translate to know what the sources say. It also means that I can't properly search for sources either way. I edit a lot of airport articles but I try to remain neutral about each one. Without the controversy section this article would be no more than hundreds of other Canadian airports.

Starting with the added tags. It would have been helpful if, when adding the tags, some explanation had been provided here.

  1. "This article's Criticism or Controversy section may compromise the article's neutral point of view of the subject." This may be true but was there similar demonstrations in support of the airport. How much support of the community does the airport enjoy?
  2. "This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral." There is very little in the way of sources used that are associated with the airport so I'm not sure how it applies.
  3. "This article needs additional citations for verification." True but as I pointed out I have trouble finding them.
  4. "This article includes inline citations, but they are not properly formatted." Yes they are formatted in a manner that is acceptable according to Help:Footnotes.

Above there is a list of the type of sources used and the claim that 10 of them are not acceptable. Which 10 are not acceptable? I would agree that usually Facebook is not an acceptable source but in this case it's only being used to show that the group exists. Though at the same time anybody can start a Facebook group so it is not an indication of major support. Are there sources that show support in the community for the airport? I looked at the official site (in Google Translate) and they seem derogatory about the opponents but that may be because of the poor translation.

I've left a message at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Québec/Neuville Airport asking for other editors to chime in. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi,
  1. There was not a single demonstration pro-airport by any neuville citizens. There is almost no suppport from the population for the airport. The only support pro-airport I can think in the whole towm of 3700 people is the one who sold his land for 350 000$ (he paid 60 000$) to the airport promoters. Note that the promoters are not people from Neuville, they came from places far away.
  2. the sources used are mostly newspaper with an editorial comitee. Nothing irregular.
  3. I added a few more.
  4. I agree they are acceptable.
I propose to remove the header. Thanks--Jstrob (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
bouchecl has manage to have me block by his friends on the french wikipedia. They were pushing their POV wihout listening to me I asked for another mediator and they answered me by blocking me. the one who blocked me, Starus is a pro-aviation as he wrote on his page. If that's not POV pushing what is it? he should loose his power to block people.--Jstrob (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Debate over at frwiki

Debate on frwiki over this article has ended. fr:Utilisateur:Jstrob was blocked for 7 days for POV-pushing and WP:POINT (in fact, he was blocked not by one but by two administrators). My expanded version of the article, updated to this version is ready (English translation sandboxed here). Awaiting feedback before moving it. Bouchecl (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

User Bouchecl is now free to publish his own POV pushing with an article being the point of view of the promoters of this airport with a size that is too huge for such a small airport. He seems to be doign a free publicity for this airport. My blocking was totally uncalled for by someone who call himself "lover of aviation" (Starus). there are many ways to write an article, I proposed one, bouchecl proposed his and we were not agreeing. He used some strategy to make me block by his probable friends. I was not POV pushing. He was POV pushing and constantly attacking me personnaly. I'm totally disgusted by my experience here as a new contributor to wikipedia. I will remember it for a long time.--Jstrob (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
So Bouchecl and co took this wonderfully democratic experience called Wikipedia and transformed it into an autocratic propaganda tool for their friends. Bravo!--24.226.173.161 (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
J'approuve totalement cette version traduite de la version française, très beau travail (Translate : I fully support this translated version of the French version, very nice work)Vienneauluc (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I attempted a mediation on the French article, further to Jstrob's request at the mediation board. Until the discussion was brought to an and by Jstrob's block, we have only discussed on the basis of Bouchecl's draft. In my opinion - though constructive discussion is always welcome - this draft provides a much more neutral basis than the current poorly sourced and biased version of the article. I therefore support the idea of replacing the current version by his draft and - naturally - continuing the discussion on this clarified basis. Cheers, — Racconish Tk 23:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Done. Bouchecl (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I hope en:wikipedia will not publish the version of these POV pushers.

They manipulated the facts by changing what the sources were really saying to make it more flatering to the promoters. Luc VienneauLuc who asked his friend Bouchecl to write that article is a friend of the promoters who tried to erase his articles on the net about anti-airport-opponant propaganda (but they are still in google cache here) and he even erased his facebook account. Probably he doesn't want the wikipedia community to know who he's friend with.

I was not contributing to any article when they blocked me. I was discussing an article. How can they block me for POV pushing when discussing an article ("The term POV-pushing is primarily used in regard to the presentation of a particular POV in an article and generally does not apply to talk page discussions.")? I was polite so they can't block me for personnal attack and such. I was asking Bouchecl to include some info I was taking from very notorious sources and I wanted him stop changing the words he was sourcing from some articles to suit his POV. As soon as they blcok me he was publishing his POV pushing article on fr:wikipedia. This is awful! Those should ne all blocked now: Bouchecl, VienneauLuc, Starus, Raconnish-- Jstrob (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

1-Compte his facebook account
J'ai limité l’affiche et ce n’est pas tout le monde qui peut visualiser mon compte et je n’ai rien effacé.
2-Compte his articles
Le journal du courrier du sud a fait une refonte de leur site internet et je ne suis pas responsable de la modification et de l’effacement de mes textes
3-Utilisateur Bouchecl
Je ne connais pas l’utilisateur Bouchecl personnellement et j’ai seulement eu des discussions sur Wikipédia
4-un ami des promoteurs
Je ne connais aucun promoteur de l’aéroport, cette affirmation est de la pure fabulation
Jstrob vient ici parce qu’il a été bloqué sur la page française Wikipédia account et il est en recherche d’attention et fait de fausse accusation et accuse faussement des personnes de confiance qui travaillent sur Wikipédia depuis plusieurs années.
Translate :
1-Account his facebook account
I have limited the display and it is not everyone who can view my account and I have not deleted.
2-Account his articles
The mail log Southern made ​​a redesign of their website and I'm not responsible for modifying and deleting my texts
3-User Bouchecl
I do not know the user Bouchecl personally and I've only had discussions on Wikipedia
4-Sponsors a Friend
I do not know any promoter of the airport, this statement is pure fabrication

Jstrob come here because it was stuck on the French page [Wikipedia http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_utilisateur:Jstrob account] and it is attention seeking and made false accusations and falsely accuses people of faith who work on Wikipedia for several years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vienneauluc (talk • contribs) 15:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy the bot signed your intervention. I would never guessed who wrote such things here. anyway I think now Bouchecl version helped by me a bit is far better from what VienneauLuc wanted to write when he repeatedtly erased the entire controversy section without any talk even in breah of the R3R rule.--Jstrob (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

How this stub fails on so many levels

Jstrob (talk · contribs) and 24.226.173.161 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (probably his logged out alter ego, as the style and tenor of their arguments closely match) argue this article is fine as it is. Considering the article history I am not the only one who thinks this stub is in need of a serious overhaul.

The current version of this article doesn't come close to achieve a neutral point of view and is the result of POV pushing (and is not even a competent POV push, IMO). Let's see why.

The article's topic is an aerodrome. How big, how active is it? How many runways? Are there many planes based there? Commercial service or small aircraft? You wouldn't know about it by reading this three-paragraph stub. Here are a few questions to consider to gauge if this article, as it currently stands meets the standards:

  1. Why was this aerodrome built in Neuville? When was it built? Who built it? To what purpose? What's the background?
  2. If I read the English version of the article correctly, this airport seems to be quite unpopular with local residents. As it stands, it doesn't say why, except for brief mention about the proximity of the runway "a few hundred feet away" from one house. Is that the only reason?
  3. Are there people supporting this aerodrome? Who are they? What are they saying?
  4. What's the position of municipal and provincial authorities? Do they agree with this? Don't they have authority on zoning and land use?
  5. What's the position of the Government of Canada in the matter? I assume they have one, since an opposition MP filed a petition on behalf of residents in the House of Commons.
  6. I read there is an ongoing lawsuit against the airport. Why? Which court? Has the case been heard? Was there a preliminary ruling on the case? If so, on which ground and has the ruling been appealed?


As for the sources present in the article, simply adding 5 sources to a fact not in dispute (where one, maybe two sources would be enough) doesn't address the more substantive issues mentioned above.

The current version of this article in French (and its translation, currently in userspace) answers these questions. The current stub does not.

In summary, to quote the review box at the bottom of the page, this article as it currently stands does not show "a fair representation of all perspectives on the issue" and does not "cover the essential topic areas that it should". Period. Bouchecl (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The new version is now live. I do agree with Racconish (talk · contribs) that this version is perfectible and constructive editing is welcome. However, reverting to the previous flawed version is not acceptable. Bouchecl (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
This is not a newspaper, it's a encyclopedia. If you want to know the answer to all those questions you can go to the article in reference. The fact is that is a very small and new airport only known for the controversy it created. So the precedent article as written by CambridgeBayWeather was far more suited for wikipedia. I thinnk it sould be reverted.--Jstrob (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight - Controversy section

I have seen Moxy (talk · contribs)'s {{undue}} banner at the top of the Controversy section. How should we fix this problem? By adding material, removing some, by trimming both Oppose and Support sub-sections? I'd be happy to hear your suggestions. Bouchecl (talk) 06:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It really should be summarized better (consolidated) - to detailed in some cases making one question its notability (i.e 100 residents or 150 marched - not many at all - but saying there percentage of the population within the community will give it the proper tone) - The ideal approach is to integrate the negative and positive criticism as one entity: they should be trimmed and woven together not separate. i.e Abortion without dough there is negative and positive criticism of the topic yet its all incorporated together. Looks like to sides of a debate are having it out on the page in separate sections - two tones to the article. Moxy (talk) 07:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
That's reasonable. I'll have a new draft of this section ready in a few hours. Bouchecl (talk) 13:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Moxy, this small airport built in a 3700 persons village is only known because of the controversy it created. In fact the whole article is a bit too big for such a smal airport. But the controversy section should be bigger than the rest of the article. Think about it like an article about someone like Al Capone. Al Capone is know for his cromes and if you write an atrticle about him, you don't start talking about what he was doing as a hobby or anything not related to his crimes. This airport is not know for crimes, but for controversy. If you search on google and collect all news articles talking about this airport, you will see there were a lot only talking about the controversy. It was even on the front page of Le Devoir, which is probably the most notorious newspaper of Quebec Province.--Jstrob (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I have edited the section as per Moxy (talk · contribs)'s request. Bouchecl (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree it is better now. I still think the article as a whole i a bit too big, but once we start talking about such a controversial subject, it's hard to stay neutral wihout adding a few details.--Jstrob (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Article too big controversy section too small!

I think the article is too big for such a small airport. The airport caused a huge controversy in the province of quebec with a shock wave across canada. There were debates about it in Canada house of commons, quebec National assembly, quebec mayor association gathjering, Canada's Mayors association gathering etc etc. It was exposed in so many newspapers articles in quebec even making many front pages. But it was always about the controversy and nothing else. So if we make a big article on wikipedia, it has to talk about that controversy.

The article replaced by Bouchecl contains many mistakes that I will try to correct instead of reversing and start a never ending war edit like it happenned for the french version. --Jstrob (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the article is probably too long. I did what was suggested by Moxy (talk · contribs) and reduced the controversy by 40%. Bouchecl (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Martin Mercier

First there was a mistake in Le Soleil article cited by Bouchecl concerning the name of one of the promoters. His name is Martin Mercier and not Pierre Mercier. You can confirm it by looking at the Registraire des entreprises for Neuville Aero.

You can see the right name on all the other newspaper articles like these ones:

http://www.courrierdeportneuf.com/index.asp?s=detail_actualite&id=131043

http://www.lapresse.ca/le-soleil/affaires/actualite-economique/201112/09/01-4476271-aeroport-de-neuville-main-tendue-aux-ailes-quebecoises.php

http://www.radio-canada.ca/regions/Quebec/2012/02/28/004-promoteur-neuville-dementi.shtml

http://www.infoportneuf.com/index.php/affaires/13-affaires/4370-laeroport-de-neuville-est-qtout-a-fait-legalq-selon-martin-mercier-president-de-neuville-aero

--Jstrob (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I changed the name to Martin Mercier, but Bouchecl reverted it to Pierre Mercier again! Can't he read more than one article????--Jstrob (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. I removed the names of the promoters altogether. Bouchecl (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I added them with a reference to the official publication: Registraire des entreprises du Québec. I also correctd their city of origine. They are from Montreal, Pont-Rouge and Quebec (none of them from Neuville for sure!).--Jstrob (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
And your edit is not 100% right since according to your source, the company officers are Martin Mercier (president), Raymond Carpentier (v. p.), Steve Sénéchal (secretary). These three are listed as the main shareholders. Jean-Marc Carpentier is an administrator, but not an officer. Another problem with your source is the fact that the registry doesn't allow hard-linking, which pose another verification problem. I'm surprised by your edit by the way, since you said earlier the article was too long... Bouchecl (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
If your read the articles, you will see Jean-Marc Carpentier is cited as a leader of the group. In fact he is probably the most important. He is the one with the most experience in that kind of business. He once tried to build a dam on one of the most beautiful river of Quebec: la rivère Trois-Pistoles. He had to back up under citizens pressure. An ecological festival was created that now bring far more money to the town than what the dam was supposed to bring.--Jstrob (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
You just can't pick and choose information to your liking. As I said before, Jean-Marc Carpentier, although an administrator of 9247-9104 Québec Inc., is not an officer of the company. Why singling him out (see WP:BLP). By the way, I'm happy to see that you've edited your signature on this edit. Socking is frowned upon on Wikipedia. Bouchecl (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
"You just can't pick and choose information to your liking". I'm surprised that you know about that! As I wrote before and still you are not reading well: you have to read all the articles to see that JM Carpentier is cited as a leader. You wrote it yourself in the first place!--Jstrob (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I've read and searched the four above-mentioned articles. Of the lot, only one (in the October 7, 2011 issue of the Courrier de Portneuf) mentions the Carpentier brothers. As the president of the group, Martin Mercier is the public face of the company, we could leave his name and remove the two others, as it would otherwise shorten the article. Bouchecl (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Why do you suddenly want to remove 2 small words to shorten your article? I think the Carpentier brother lead is obvious for anyone who read all the articles about that airport.--Jstrob (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Article title

The style of the title of this article is odd because of the the / in it - its it called "Québec" in any official capacity . There is no other "Neuville Airport" correct? - just don't think anyone will ever type Québec/Neuville Airport in a Google search for this place and the fact the letter é is not found on an English keyboard for someone to type. Is it normal for Airport articles to use /? 18:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I left it as it was when I first came in. I assumed (maybe I was wrong), the designation came from the Canadian Flight Supplement (ref #1). I would not object to a renaming to Neuville Airport, provided Québec/Neuville Airport is kept as a redirect, since other airports in the area also use this form e.g. Québec/Jean Lesage International Airport. Bouchecl (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Done. Bouchecl (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Good job - there are others with the same problem - we should removed the Québec part were possible (yes leave as redirects) - see: (WP:CANFRENCH "Places").
Wish I'd seen this earlier. It should have gone to Neuville Aerodrome rather than airport. The name came from the CFS as did a lot of others. I created a lot of them (but not this one) and found it easier to have a sourced name rather than try and guess what the common name was. Which is why Brockville-Thousand Islands Regional Tackaberry Airport exists! CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
The company operates the field under the name Aéroport de Neuville, but I've seen both aéroport and aerodrome in media sources. Nothing really conclusive either way. But for all intents and purposes it is an aerodrome. Bouchecl (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
PS sorry about all the typos - Bouchecl is not aware I have MS and use speech to text a lot.Moxy (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I've been trying to put them at airport if certified and aerodrome if registered in the CFS but it's not a big deal. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Neuville 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuville_Airport/Archive_1&oldid=1073755785"