Talk:Macau International Airport

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


Contents

[edit] Artificial island?

It is now claimed that this airport is an artificial island. However, it seems that this so-called island is actually connected by causeways, not bridges, and is an extension of Taipa island. [1] appears to support this, and so does [2] and [3].--Huaiwei 18:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

This picture taken by SchmuckyTheCat (well, a photo of a poster :-P) is a bit clearer. Here are some pictures showing the one of the taxiways [4] [5]. This document (PDF format) says the taxiways connecting the runway and the apron are bridges. — Instantnood 06:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Facts arent facts until proven. If you think this is a trival requirement, then you have no place in wikipedia. ;) Anyway, out of the three pictures you provided, only the third one looks much more convincing. I am ignoring the text source coz I could see that that was where you guys copied the information from anyway. Can anyone produce information showing how the taxiways were constructed? On reclaimed land or piles? But come to think of it...didnt Instantnood now claim that even piled structures are islands?--Huaiwei 08:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Of course facts aren't facts until proven. But you're refuting facts as facts just because you yourself don't know they are. If you've question why don't you look for proof yourself before being bold and made the edits? (Meanwhile I did not make any claim.. I'm only sticking with what is said in the articles on Wikipedia.) — Instantnood 09:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
If I dont know, then show me, since you claim it as a fact. The only information I have at my disposal, including that picture by cat, and by searching on the net which sometimes shows the taxiways being depicted as reclaimed land rather then bridges, has led me to question what you claim as "verified" fact. Why would I dispute this "fact" if I didnt do my own research before hand, and be "emboldened" enough to edit them? And dont try to divert responsibility again. If you insist on keeping a certain version, and if you argue for it, then you share the responsibility of making that claim. If you are not making that claim, then may I know what are you doing? Reverting for fun?
And once again, I find it very strange that you appear to "stick to what has been said in wikipedia articles", as thou you are new to wikipedia and do not know how it works. Anyone can edit wikipedia, irregardless of whether it is fact or not, which is why verification of fact is so damn important. If someone were to write "Instantnood is steamed" somewhere in wikipedia, we are to accept it as fact just like that? Pointing out that a certain article appears to have flawed information is part and parcel of how wikipedia grows and corrects itself. Your resistance to this move by insisting that the information presented in the article at present is the final, correct version is against wikipedia's most basic principles. Amazing for someone who accepts an admin nomination indeed.--Huaiwei 09:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Some certain articles may appear to contain flawed information to you, it doesn't mean the information must be flawed, and appear to be flawed to everyone. Until such information is proven, agreed upon and verified to be flawed, you cannot edit articles around according to your point of view by assuming the information is already proven to be flawed.
Meanwhile, may I remind that the subject matter in this section is about the runway and the taxiways of the Macau International Airport. Please don't bring the discussions at other talk pages here. Please discuss at talk:artificial island if you've question on whether pile structures are artificial islands or not. — Instantnood 10:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I do wonder why you need to tell me that, unless you are indicating your failure to abide by your own statements. What is the talk page for, if it is not for disagreements to be resolved, amongst other uses? Who is the one who initiated a "proper" discussion in this talk page? Obviously what I consider flawed may not be agreed on by others, hence why I am calling for fact verification, because if this fails to appear, then we have to take it that it is flawed. Simple as that, so why do you resist fact verification unless you are just trying to be a pain in the ass here?
Your next statement is equally amazing. Please tell me if you are abiding by that "rule" yourself? Please list me any wikipedian who abides by that rule too? Zero. If everyone behaves according to that rule of yours, wikipedia will be growing as fast as the nuerons in your head, so what right do you have to impose that rule on me unless you are throwing your hands up in dispair over your inability in meeting wikipedia expectations in verifying your information? You are apparantly using your laziness as an excuse here, so why should anyone abide by your rules? If no one is able to verify what he says, then yes, assuming it is flawed is a logical conclusion. Do you oppose this logic?
Lastly, since when must talk pages be segmentised according to topic if they are obviously related? Your argument is lacking in consistency and simple logic, and that is becoming obvious the more it is debated on across wikipedia. I get the feeling that you are opposing my edits just for the sake of it, and your obvious obsession with what you deem as my "anti-hk" stance. Because of your ego, and you need to be as irritating as possible, I suppose you are now caught in a bind? So...an oil rig is an island. Same for all structures on piles, right? So....why are you now insisting these "bridges" on piles are not islands too, and part and parcel of the runway, which then makes it an extension of Taipa? I would certainly love to see how you smoke your way out of this one.--Huaiwei 10:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seaplane service

Decades ago there was a seaplane (or flying boat?) service between Macao and Hong Kong. Where was the aerodrome for the service? — Instantnood 18:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

  • any old boat dock, probably. SchmuckyTheCat 19:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    Where was the dock? — Instantnood 19:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    [6] [7] [8] Outer Harbor. SchmuckyTheCat 20:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    Thanks. Where on land were the hanger and other facilities? — Instantnood 20:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    There clearly is one in one of those pictures, but I don't know at the moment. You can put this on my to-do list if you want, I might have some resources to find out at home in those old-fashioned paper books. SchmuckyTheCat 20:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    I'm actually interested to know its (geographical) location in Macao. The location where planes took off and landed is probably filled up, now the NAPE (Novos Aterros do Porto Exterior). — Instantnood 20:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's a webpage (in Chinese) about the aviation history of Macau before the construction of the present airport. — Instantnood 11:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

Please consider moving all the alternate information in the lead (different languages and scripts etc) and put them in the infobox instead.--Filll 17:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flights to Pyongyang

The implication in this piece is that Macau has regular direct flights to North Korea. Is this the case? There is an Air Koryo office in the airport and they have arrangements for flights from Macau to Pyongyang, but the same can be said for Bangkok, Khavarosk, and Mukden. The flights are reportedly sporadic and unpredictable. The North Koreans use the flights to Macau when it benefits them – it isn’t as if there is an adequate volume of traffic to justify regularly scheduled flights. There are regularly scheduled and dependable flights only between Pyongyang and Peking. Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to say that there are “irregular” flights from Macau to Pyongyang?