Talk:Nicosia International Airport

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: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the airport project.

Cyprus Mid‑importance

	Cyprus portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cyprus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cyprus 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.CyprusWikipedia:WikiProject CyprusTemplate:WikiProject CyprusCypriot articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Old discussions

The airplane in the photo is actually a Hawker-Siddeley HS121 Trident, not a 727. I've updated the caption. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the segment referencing Operation NIKI. Judging from account, I would hardly characterize that mission as suicidal.Twiddy (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we aren't allowed to take pictures of anything within the UN buffer zone area ("Green line"). --Savvas Radevic (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nic-1.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

The following images, used in this article, have been nominated for deletion:

File:Nic-1.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 21 September 2011
File:Nic-2.jpg has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 21 September 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

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 discussion reached No Consensus. SalopianJames (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Afternoon folks, I'd like to propose that RAF Nicosia be merged into this article, as it is a short article which would nicely fit into the history section of this article, which could itself do with expansion. In the event the section on RAF Nicosia be expanded sufficiently, it could then be split out to form its own article. Suggestions welcome! Thanks, SalopianJames (talk) 12:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose RAF Nicosia should keep it's own dedicated article as the current airport is largely disused and the RAF article could be easily expanded up to at least B-class.

P.s please put this discussuion notice on the WP:MILHIST talk page to get more views. Gavbadger (talk) 13:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, if you're happy to expand RAF Nicosia that's great - just thought that as a stub it might as well be merged, but if you're going to expand it there's no need. SalopianJames (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, content should remain independent. Duplicated content that is not directly related to the base should be removed, or a summary left in its place and directed into this article. The base is independently notable, and thus should remain a separate article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The articles, though, cover the same airfield, but simply at differing periods of time - considering that the airport, even now, still technically belongs to the MoD I would have thought that the situation at the moment is two articles about the same topic? SalopianJames (talk) 09:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge - all the material on the same airport should be in the same place. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This does appear to be the saem place.Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all the material on the same airport should be in the same place unless/until it goes over 64kB of *text*. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A tricky one given that the airport remained as MoD property, but as with many other articles (like RAF Hurn for example), I think it better to separate the RAF station from the airport, especially if there's potential to expand the RAF article. As an aside, I've struck one of the duplicate merge votes above and informed Buckshot. Ranger Steve ^Talk 13:43, 16 July 2012 (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.