Talk:São Paulo–Congonhas Airport

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Aviation: Airports 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. Brazil: Transportation Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics 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.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Transportation in Brazil task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

It's not an international airport. It's a domestic one. 201.26.87.207 23:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The definition is used very loosely, and it generally applies to any airport that has the capability of customs and immigration clearing. Congonhas has that ability (Federal Police and Customs on the premises), but no international flights fly out of it. So if, for example, you're flying in on a private jet from abroad, you could in theory make Congonhas your port-of-entry.Dali-Llama 04:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be

Please, give us some time to evaluate situation - this is not right time to do harsh deletionist moves to enforce your specific wikipedian attitude.....there should be some voting before such important move. Thank you for your patience and generosity. --Bluewind 02:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way it would be bigger challenge to change that policy with accidents on Heathrow, JFK or any other bigger airport articles rather than on this tiny little airport....go there and persuade them in discussion...and when you win their support come back here and delete the same things as you were allowed to do in Heathrow or JFK. Thank you very much. --Bluewind 02:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same argument you make for "harsh deletionist moves" and "evaluate the situation" can be made for NOT including the information until we're in a position to include information on all incidents at Congonhas. I'm not saying we should not include accident information. I'm saying if we are to include it, it should be done when it has moved beyond "current events" and can be addressed in a historical perspective. Certainly not when we're including statements such as "No information on casualties has been made available yet" (A sentence which I wrote, actually on another article and has already been changed multiple times). And honestly, "specific wikipedian attitude"? I'm not the most by-the-book Wikipedian, but I do try to follow policy. I may misquote policy occasionally, but I do try to make sure that it's being followed. Nothing wrong with that. And please, tone down the ironic commentary and try to

I agree with Dalillama about listing the accidents and incidents as a whole. Those improvements have been made (thank you) and are very good. But please, don't lose sight of the fact that 200 people died! Your arguments over format look petty and childish in light of that. Wikipedia is not top priority here, so relax a bit. Goeverywhere 17:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not top priority here"? I don't know if you misspoke, but we're IN Wikipedia. Other projects have other policies and have different goals. Wikinews has an article on this and their policies are different--they're a repository for news. We're an encyclopedia, and we need a few rules (as few as possible) to make it one. Why does the fact that 200 people died make a difference in how we write an encyclopedia? I don't think it does. We don't bend or break rules for individual incidents. And trust me, I'm not losing sight of the fact that nearly 200 people died a horrible death landing on an airport I've used dozens of times and crashed into a building I've been in myself a couple of times. Pretty hard to do that. Bottom line, we want everyone to contribute, but we have norms to make sure that this becomes a useful and relevant source for encyclopedic knowledge, not a hodgepodge of data.--Dali-Llama 17:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia vs. 200 dead? Even on Wikipedia, the fact that 200 are dead is more important than a website. As I said, your original point was correct but it devolved into a turf war -- one that looked petty in light of 200 deaths. It was SO petty that I felt the need to address it. You and Bluewind were arguing with each other, and now you want to argue with me. Silly, cuz the article looks good. Indeed, I came here for some good info and got it. Great job! That's my last word. Have a great day. Goeverywhere 02:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I didn't understand... who is the petist in all this discussion??? 200.140.5.85 03:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

??? What's a petist? Do you mean "petista"?--Dali-Llama 03:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see Wikipedia as place for futurology. If somebody sais it will build a new airport 1) it's not part of airport's history 2) It doesn't happenned, so it can be placed in an Encyclopedia. 201.1.181.100 (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case such plan(s) were mentioned by someone influential and implementation seemed relatively realistic, it would seem important to me to describe any such plan(s) on this page. I believe that under those circumstances a description of it would also appear in an old-fashioned paper edition encyclopedia, including at least one valid reference of course. Vovtz (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Politics talk, delete it, please. 201.1.181.100 (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]