Talk:Montréal–Mirabel International Airport

Montréal–Mirabel International Airport is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 18, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
August 22, 2005	Featured article candidate	Promoted
May 31, 2007	Featured article review	Demoted

Current status: Former featured article

Aviation: Airports

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.

Canada: Quebec / Montreal Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Quebec.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Montreal (assessed as Mid-importance).

Spoken Wikipedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken 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.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles

Confusing mix of imperial and metric units of area in the intro

"...with a planned area of 39,660 hectares (396.6 km)..." followed further down by:-
"In 1989, 81,000 of the 98,000 acres (400 km2) were deeded back to their owners...."
First we have hectares and acres - both pretty meaningless units, but shouldn't the article stick to a consistent unit of measurement ?
Secondly, if the TOTAL PLANNED AREA was only 396.6sqkm, how could 400sqkm be deeded back in 1989 ????
Either the first figure is incorrect, or the second figure is incorrect - as obviously an airport cannot be MINUS 3.4sqkm in size.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Malau (talk • contribs) 12:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

older entries

Someone may wish to check the history of Mirabel. I am fairly certain that at the time the airport system was planned to be organized around gateways to which all international flights would go. Canada's two gateways were to be Vancouver and Montreal. Because supersonic flights were expected to be the future of international travel, they built Mirabel outside the city, avoiding noise disruptions to residents and allowing it to operate 24 hours a day. Dorval was supposed to remain a domestic airport. Unfortunately that system was never adopted. A high-speed rail link between the two was never built, making connections inconvenient. Because of this, Mirabel was never really adopted for international flights, the proximity to Montreal and convenience of Dorval being favoured. As it grew into less of an important airport, Pearson becoming the main hub in Eastern Canada, Mirabel was no longer really necessary.

Actually, AFAIK, the airport was built a Mirabel due to a dispute between the Quebec Premier and Trudeau. Trudeau wanted it closer, in St. Eustache, but that was too close to the Ontario border for the Premier. Thus the horrible compromise position. Burgundavia 06:47, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)
The political decision to name Dorval Airport for former Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau is of note as Trudeau was one of the main proponents of the construction of Mirabel, originally expecting it to accommodate 26 million travellers a year.--66.102.74.146 15:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a paragraph which claimed that Dorval didn't close because of "political opposition from communities near Dorval", since that's completely rediculous. We would have loved it if they had closed Dorval. No more Jumbo Jets flying over our houses at 7:00 on a Saturday morning, no more airport traffic on the 20 while we're trying to get home from work. The whole point of Mirabel was to move the airport away from a populated area, but it was screwed up by government incompetance. - Mike, Pointe Claire

Anyone claiming noise pollution at Dorval is either deluded or from a different planet. The sonic footprint of a modern 747 is less than the DC-9's, DC-8's and older 727's & 737's that were the staple of Dorval in the early 80's, due to high bypass engines and modern technology. In addition, the alignment of the runways are such that final approaches and initial departures from Runways 06L & 06R (24L & 24R) are either over Lac. St. Louis or the industrial areas of Ville St. Laurent. The only traffic going out over Pointe-Claire proper is light- & medium-weight aircraft from Runway 28/10 (basically, the same sort of traffic Pointe-Claire has always seen). Given the fact that aircraft are getting quieter and quieter, this is a non-issue.

I used to work in Dorval (Fenelon boulevard) and the noise pollution was moderate. However, it is MUCH worse in Saint-Laurent, a densely populated area which lies right under the main approach airway. My brother-in-law used to live there; we could se the fine details under the Boeings as they was passing over us (by dozens) at dinner time. Hugo Dufort 08:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More important questions would be a) why did the dimwits in Dorval Town Hall allow everybody and his brother to build right up to the airport fences, and b) what sort of idiot moves right up against an airport and expects nature park levels of quiet???? -Keith, Pointe-Claire.

I included the section NPOV tag, because IMO that section includes much material criticizing the lack of government action against Dorval (such as nbot instituting the Wright Amendment) and assertions that Mirabel was a white elephant, without providing opposing views. Ngchen 03:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the airport was planned to have so many more passengers, four additional runways, five more terminals, high speed rail access, etc., and these things never came about due to the airports failure to develop, I think it's fair to call it a "white elephant" which is, as our own article states "a thing which is more trouble than it is worth".Brian Schlosser42 04:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is the least NPOV article I've ever seen featured. It includes the word fiasco, which is a dead giveaway. The author should revisit this with a fresh approach to fact.

Please protect

With the major vandalism occuring the the featured articles of the day recently, I am terribly surprised that they have not been protected for the day. Do people really want to see images of penises in the middle of supposed featured articles? It ruins what we are trying to accomplish here. --AlexWCovington (talk) 04:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV, and other complaints

This is a sorry excuse for a featured article. It is short, lacks comprehensiveness, and reeks of NPOV. Here is a blatant and inexcusable example:

--"It is remarkable that the federal government never considered enacting legislation similar to the Wright Amendment that would force airlines to use Mirabel instead of Dorval."

The author/s is asserting his/her own opinion, and it could've easily been worded to the effect that popular opinion felt enacting legislation would be a good idea. The words "It is remarkable" particularly stand out. Here is another:

--"It was the federal government's failure to close Dorval that ultimately made Mirabel redundant and a costly white elephant."

The article takes a decidedly anti-federal stance that, although the lack of federal initiative is (in part) factual, makes this article stand out as being one-sided. And then there's this:

--"These vehicles, similar to those at Washington Dulles International Airport, were rumored to cost one million Canadian dollars apiece (though the real figure was probably lower) and were prone to mechanical breakdowns."

An encyclopedia article has no place for "rumors." The real cost should've been researched and if the figures were not available, the author/s should simply mention that the vehicles were exceedingly expensive. Do not perpetuate unfounded facts.

I have no idea how this article made our beloved front page. 19 September 2005 is a sad day for Wikipedia. --Gsgeorge 05:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Further issues:

the sentence "In today's terms, the single Montréal-Mirabel TRRAMM line would have cost at least a billion Canadian dollars." Where is the source for this, and what does "in today's terms" mean?
"After 1976, its prestige value mostly used up, the airport began to decline in its importance." - this does appear to be the POV of the author, though this may be the case.
"Mirabel Airport is considered to be one of the best laid-out airports in the world." - by whom?
"A simple minimalist dark glass box sitting on top of a concrete bunker housing maintenance services, the terminal was hailed as an architectural triumph when it first opened."
I would definitely agree with Gsgeorge about the rumour bit. If we can source the rumours, we might be able to add them. However, wouldn't it be better (and easier!) to source the fact itself?

No offense to the author (I'm not sure who this is - I haven't checked the history), but this article seems to be written from the POV that there was nothing good about the Montréal-Mirabel International Airport. Even the good features are damned with either faint praise or criticism. I really don't think this is an NPOV article - which is sad because clearly the author is an expert in the material and has done a fair amount of research! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's even sadder that Wikisheep like Raul654 are removing the POV warnings from the article in an attempt to hide Wikipedia's flaws from the world. Since the POV problems are so obvious, why shouldn't we advertise that the problems are recognized and undergoing review? I'm not sure which is worse: the decision to frontpage this article or the actions of certain drones (e.g. Raul654) who are trying to quell dissent. Did you see his comment? "Do not POV tag while on main page." Our response: don't put articles with blatant POV violations on the main page, boy. This is Wikipedia's peer review in action? 138.88.203.93 08:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what he did. The POV problem is bad, but not so bad that it must be seen on an article that is on the main page. In fact, with a few copyedits and a little bit of fact checking, this article would be main page material again. - 211.30.175.100 10:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and incidently: he's not your "boy". - 211.30.175.100 10:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. The Hurricane Katrina article was on the main page for some time and there were short periods when it contained an NPOV tag for legitimate reasons, and it was removed only when the NPOV problems were taken care of--it was NOT removed out of protection of a 'front page' article from public eyes. Wikipedia is an open-source, public encyclopedia. If someone has a problem with an article, no matter their status in the Wikipedia community (anon user or admin), they should be able to bring attention to it without the article being babied for reasons of public interest. However bad the decisions by our administrators have been concerning this article, it looks like our complaints heeded at least one smart choice: the article has been taken off the main page. I guess that means we can add all the NPOV tags we want. --Gsgeorge 14:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to notice the POV issues being brought up with this article and attempted to remove as much of the offending material as possible. Nevertheless, I need someone else to help go through the article and edit where necessary without further reducing the article. I contacted the person who nominated this article for FA, yet so far there is no response. Pentawing 01:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to remove the POV tag after cleaning up much of the POV issues with the article and removing some unsubstantiated facts. Nevertheless, if someone still has an issue with the article, can you please inform me of the exact problems and if possible help in correcting them? Thanks. Pentawing 21:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to airports in Hong Kong

"Closing down Dorval would have justified Mirabel's investment and usage, much like how the Hong Kong government mandated the closure of Kai Tak to make way for the larger Chek Lap Kok."

As a native Hong Konger I can tell you this is a bad comparison. The reason for the new airport is very clear - Kai Tak was completely, utterly, totally saturated for the last decade or two of its operation and was constantly running above designed capacity with no possibility of expansion. However there is no point keeping both airports for a number of reasons. First of all Kai Tek was situated in the dead centre of a densely populated area with one of the trickiest approach paths in the world which crews needed special endorsement to fly. I'm actually quite surprised that no major accidents happened but it was only a matter of time. Also because of Kai Tek the whole area around it had a development height limit - remembering that this is the middle of the Hong Kong harbour we are talking about, or the "greater CBD" area for lack of a better term. That place is worth a fortune if redeveloped without the height restriction. So, Kai Tek wasn't closed to force everybody to use the new airport, it simply ran out of shelf life. CW 08:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Biased POV

Because of the reasons mentioned above, I have placed this POV problem on the top of the page. It is a shame having a featured article have a Biased point of view. Please correct quickly, so it would have a NPOV. Weirdperson11 23:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the article a few weeks ago and attempted to repair the POV issues that were brought up. However, where else did you see POV issues within the article? Pentawing 00:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"The federal government's failure to close Dorval ultimately made Mirabel redundant and a costly white elephant." That's a subjective comment, if you change it to objective, maybe it would be better.

Also, "The government predicted that Dorval would be completely saturated by 1985 as part of its justification for building Mirabel. The federal government further claimed that 20 million passengers would be passing through Montréal's airports annually, with 17 million through Mirabel."

No sourcing info, if you could search through Canada archives, if you live in Ottawa, that would be nice. I think they have a archive online if this claim is true.

Who's "Some"? And are they experts or not. I now figured out that it is more uncited "facts" then POV problems.

"Mirabel Airport is considered to be one of the best laid-out airports in the world."

Subjective, if someone said that in a newspaper, that would be fine but change it to objective.

One other problem, there's no pictures of the airport from the ground. The aerial picture is black and white, what a load of crap, and there's some good diagrams but no pictures of the actual place. I suggest replacing the b&w photo with a color photo from Nasa World Wind and could do a aerial "picture" from Google Earth which would look OK (Tilt it 45o. Then it would look the best aerial way, and not look washed-out like it is at 60o or more). Don't know if it would infringe on copyright stuff.

Weirdperson11 01:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I live in the U.S., but I'll see what I can do (though it is quite limited, given that the Library and Archives of Canada does not post the actual materials online, only the listings and the holding library). However, if you feel you can reword the passages to make them more objective, go right ahead. You could also try to talk to AlbertR, who was one of the article's primary contributors. As for the images, this could be a problem. I know airliners.net has some images, but they are copyrighted. What we need is someone from Montreal who is willing to take some pictures of the airport. Pentawing 01:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of people from Montreal who work on Wikipedia. Try and find the regular contributors on the [Montreal] article, and see if you could get some people to go to Mirabel and take some snaps. On another note, I think they could also go to Ottawa for some info, or we could get someone else who lives in Ottawa, but I could steal the stuff from airliners.net if it really gets desperate! Weirdperson11 19:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you even suggest stealing from a.net! The images you uploaded do not belong on wikipedia: they are blatent copyright violations. They will be deleted in due course.

My responses to your POV soncerns:

1. "The federal government's failure to close Dorval ultimately made Mirabel redundant and a costly white elephant." I don't remember adding this; I'd rather it be removed. Mirabel was doomed to fail anyway. Dorval being closed wouldn't have made much difference.

2. "The government predicted that Dorval would be completely saturated by 1985 as part of its justification for building Mirabel. The federal government further claimed that 20 million passengers would be passing through Montréal's airports annually, with 17 million through Mirabel." This prediction can be found in the Financial Times of Canada pamphet-book cited at the bottom of the article, which is available avaiable at your local library (or at least mine).

3. "Some estimate that the sale of Dorval's land to private developers would have easily covered the cost of the proposed Montréal-Mirabel TRRAMM line and Autoroute highways." I did not add this, and it is pure unsourced conjecture, so delete it.

4. "Mirabel Airport is considered to be one of the best laid-out airports in the world." This should probably be removed as well, as it is unsubstantiated.

Alr 17:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I eliminated the POV passages. As for the second passage, can someone list the actual source? Pentawing 00:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Terminal (movie)

I removed the section showing that Terminal was filmed at Montreal Airport it was actually filmed at Palmdale Airport (in the old Rockwell hangars) near Los Angeles California. --Alohawolf 20:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False. At least three places in the movie were clearly shot at Mirabel: the immigration desks and baggage caroussels (minus French signs, and international flags replaced by US flags), the scene where the United Airlines 747 taxies to the gate (a yellow Aéroports de Montréal sign is clearly seen on the jetway) and the drop-off zone and exterior view of the terminal (with digitally added New York skyline reflection). I have images to prove this. So, I'm reinstating that section, and adding details. -- AirOdyssey 04:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map

The Highway 50 has been greatly expanded in the recent years; it has been completed from Lachute to Highway 15 (through Mirabel). The map should be updated. Hugo Dufort 08:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mirabel Airport may close permanently

In December 2006, in a move he called "correcting a historical injustice", Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced the return of 4450 hectares of farmland expropriated to build Mirabel Airport. About 125 farmers, who rent their land from the federal government, were permitted to buy it back.

Does this mean Mirabel Airport will close permanently and get demolished and removed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jim856796 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No — like the article says, Mirabel is only using 19% of its area. Jpatokal (talk) 07:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chateau Aeroport-Mirabel hotel

I'm wondering if a brief mention of the Chateau Aeroport-Mirabel hotel is warranted in the article. If memory serves correctly, it was a fairly large hotel (5 story, 360 room) themed-resort that sat directly beside the airport. I know it was originally owned by CP Hotels in the 70's, then changed ownership at some point, and finally closed on August 26, 2002--shortly before the airport was closed to regular passenger traffic. The building was still standing and intact as of mid 2006 from what I can find through online research...even still furnished and setup, but locked and up not been used for the past +5 years. I'd almost go as far as saying abandoned.

It's a piece of the airport and its history, isn't it?-Apple2gs (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

11/29 Reopened?

I recently used Google Maps to look at Mirabel, and to my surprise, I saw that Mirabel's 11/29 runway was missing the X's which are usually used to denote a shut down runway (look at this example from Ottawa's main airport [1]).

I somehow recall that runway having X's before, but appear to have since been removed. Can someone investigate this? The Legacy (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nautical miles?

There appears to be some complicated wikimarkup, else I would change it myself, but what does nautical mileage have to do with anything? "Mirabel is an airport located in Mirabel, Quebec, 21 NM (39 km; 24 mi) northwest[2] of Montreal." 74.12.222.15 (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nautical miles are used because it's an international standard, like feet being used for elevations. See London Heatrow or Paris for example. Also it's easy to source and helps to cut down arguments about how far the airport is from the associated community. The downside is that it may not be clear where in the community they are measuring from. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 19:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New better photo?

I have a much better aerial photograph of Mirabel than the one on the page. How do I modify the proper field to use mine? quist (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move to Montreal–Mirabel International Airport

An editor moved this article to Montreal–Mirabel International Airport (i.e. without the accent), seemingly on the basis of consistency with Montreal and WP:COMMONNAME (and, presumably, WP:CANFRENCH). I moved it back because there should be a discussion (if only so that we make a consistent decision about this and Montréal–Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport). My understanding is that the airport articles use the common names in the industry, which are the official names (if we followed the common name used by the general public, we would likely not even be calling it Montreal–Mirabel International Airport). Anyway, that's what I was told three or four years ago when I raised the issue. Otherwise, I don't have a pony in this race. I will put a notice of this discussion at WP:CANTALK. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably this is an issue also affecting Québec City Jean Lesage International Airport and some other airports in Quebec. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the official name for the airports have accents then the pages should not be moved.-- Kayoty (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The official English name for the airport is "Montreal-Mirabel International Airport" (same as French name, sans accent over the 'e'), and the common name guideline states when there are two official names, the English language name must be used for the article title. Proof of its official name can be found on the government of Canada's website--note lack of the accent. Searching news and other media, the English spelling is also used. And spoken in English, I've never heard it pronounced 'more-reale-al' International airport, as opposed to 'mon-tree-all' International airport.

There was debate about the city of Montreal article being rename "Montréal", but in the end it now uses the title without the accent. It only stands to reason other articles should have consistency. Nonetheless, even though I thought it was a pretty black and white clear cut clean up, I'm open to debate as to whether it should be moved or not.--Apple2gs (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your link doesn't work. Could you please take a look at that? Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd be more interested what names the feds (not just one department or agency) and each airport authority use for the various operating airports in question, rather than this one former airport under demolition. Unless you (or someone else) thinks there is a reason why we would treat Mirabel differently than Trudeau, Lesage, etc. (which might be the case - I don't want to assume what your opinion is). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe we should translate every French name in Quebec or Canada into English. Many names are better known by their French name. I understand however the need for a redirect without accents. Also, I noticed also that around Montreal, Île Sainte-Hélène has been moved recently to Saint Helen's Island, Île Notre-Dame to Notre Dame Island and Casino de Montréal to Montreal Casino. I would like to see a discussion about these moves also.-- Kayoty (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The applicable naming convention at WP:CANFRENCH does already say that Wikipedia's "use english" policy doesn't invariably mean that we need to translate every name, but rather that we use the name most often used in English (which, sometimes, is the French-language name). For those island and casino articles, you should initiate a discussion on those talk pages, or even initiate a requested move if you want to gain wider input. We should try and limit this discussion to major airports in Quebec, as the considerations might be quite different than those for, say, the casino. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the link above. I don't think anyone on Wikipedia is looking to do a literal English translation of every name, person and place. There are many cases where only one language's wording is used by people in general, regardless of what language they're using, and that is what must stand. For example, the articles on two fast food restaurants in Quebec: La Belle Province and La Fleur. It would be absurd if someone moved those articles to "The Nice Province Restaurant" and "The Flower Restaurant", and if they tried, I'd be one of the first ones to revert it back. A case like Saint Helen's Island/Île Sainte-Hélène is different in that both the English and French names are commonly used. English books, newspaper and television print it by the English name, and of course the French name is used by French media (spoken, I've heard both names used interchangeably). Incidentally, the Saint Helen's Island article had been moved on August 4, 2005, and the Montreal Casino on July 28, 2005. Neither are recent changes, except for a revert to move the latter back where it originally was. At any rate, we should keep this discussion to Mirabel airport. Interesting that Trudeau also has the accent in the name, didn't realize that. So indeed this discussion affects the spelling in more than one article. I'd be interested in hearing what others have to say.--Apple2gs (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just my 2cents, it would be absurd to translate LaFleur restaurants simply because its named for the street in ville lasalle, its a really bad example you have thereSoyonsexpositifs (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for relieving my concerns. The reason I was concerned is that last year I had to move several pages 'La Plonge Lake' and 'Lake Île-à-la-Crosse' back to their original and historic names (and most commonly used) Lac la Plonge and Lac Île-à-la-Crosse.-- Kayoty (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use what one department says for the spelling. The CBSA uses Montreal but StatsCan uses Montréal. The English site for the airport also uses Montréal. Either way you can't be changing quotes as was done. By the way there are several airports at List of airports in Quebec that have the accent and not just over the e. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify in case anybody's uncertain about what our rules here are, we don't automatically default to "official name in original language" in all cases, but we don't automatically default to "name translated into English" either — rather, we go by both rules in different contexts. In some cases, e.g. Parti Québécois and Bloc Québécois, the standard usage in Canadian English is the official name in the original French rather than any translated alternative. In others, e.g. Rhinoceros Party and National Assembly of Quebec, there is still no official English name at all — but there is a standard one that's actually and consistently used by virtually all English speakers. Either way, we default to the form that's actually used in Canadian English speech, rather than always using the official name or always translating. And for Montreal, the government of Quebec certainly wants the accent to be used in English, and at least officially it is there in English — but in reality, the overwhelming preponderance of English-language sources just don't spell it that way regardless of what's official. The media conglomerate Quebecor is normally written without the accent in English, even in its own press releases about itself. And on and so forth. So we don't go by what's official, but by what's actually seen in actual usage.

But for many other topics, it's actually ambiguous what the "standard" English usage would be. For the Université du Québec à Montréal, for example, you see a variety of different forms — original French name used as is, original French name used without the accents, a few different ways of translating the "à" element, just skipping the whole mess by jumping straight to UQAM, etc. And for Trois-Rivières, you also see a variety of different forms in English: the original French name used as is, "Trois-Rivieres" with the hyphen but without the accent, "Trois Rivières" with the accent but without the hyphen, "Trois Rivieres" with both the accent and hyphen dropped, and historically also the translated form "Three Rivers". So in those cases when there's no clear usage consensus in English, we also default to the official French name — not because official always wins on principle, but to avoid constant editwarring between three or four or five different "English" forms.

So the fact that an airport's official name has the accents on it isn't determinative in and of itself, but neither is the fact that accents aren't part of standard English orthography — what would be determinative is the form, accented or unaccented, that's actually used in English language reliable sources about the airport. I'm far from an expert on the sources about Mirabel, so while I strongly suspect that the bulk of sources drop the accent, I can't be absolutely sure of that. But for our purposes, it's not a question of either "official always wins because official" or "unaccented always wins because WP:UE" — rather, it's a question of which form is actually seen in the preponderance of sources. And since the difference boils down to the presence or absence of a single accent, there aren't numerous competing forms to deliberate — it's a straight "X or Y" choice, not an "X or Y or Q or J or M" one, so the UQAM/Trois-Rivières "official because conflicting usages" solution isn't relevant to this matter. Either way, the other form will be kept in place as a redirect anyway — so neither form prevents anybody from finding the right article. Bearcat (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the accent – this is the sort of case where the accent is perfectly normal to English readers; easy to interpret for those in the know, and easy to ignore for others. And if you seriously want to propose a move, please use the WP:RM process. Dicklyon (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RM isn't mandatory - it's simply one tool in which to assess WP:CON. In any event, this discussion was initiated by a good faith, appropriate WP:BOLD move, which was reverted in order to allow a discussion of the wider issues (as more than one airport article could be affected), so not sure who your "if you seriously want to propose a move" is intended for.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, with the hyphenation, the article title is constructed of two independent words (or series of words): "Montreal" and "Mirabel International Airport". Keeping that in mind, it's been clearly established the spelling of Canada's second largest city, on Wikipedia, is "Montreal" (sans accent), be it for its main article or mention of the city by itself in other articles. It seems conflicting to be "Montréal" in some articles and "Montreal" in others. Then again, we have instances where it is part of a full name and the accent IS deemed necessary (i.e. Aéroports de Montréal), and rightfully so. In this particular case however, I personally think "Montreal-Mirabel International Airport" is the correct title because it hyphenates a city name. What if, for argument sake, Mirabel Airport were relocated to Vancouver, and became Vancouver-Mirabel International Airport. Officially it would be named "Vancouvér-Mirabel International Airport" and "Vancouver-Mirabel International Airport". Which spelling would we use on Wikipedia?

Technically, there is no hyphen. The en dash connects the two city names for which the airport is named; for example, see this book written in English for Canadians and visitors. Dicklyon (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't bother me though, I could live with it either way, the accent is a minor nitpick really (if we do vote on it though, I would go with that I feel is technically the right spelling). Now, what does irk me is the spelling of the articles on Montreal-West, Montreal-East, Montreal-North and Montreal-South (we have a mix of English and French spellings, depending on the direction, which is very confusing to someone reading from outside Quebec). That is something that could use a clean up and the very essence of why the common name guideline exists, but that's a whole other can of worms. :) --Apple2gs (talk) 05:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the accent – in the List of airports in France English Wikipedia has kept the accents in the titles.-- Kayoty (talk) 07:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not convinced that's relevant. That list isn't subject to the MOS which applies here, namely WP:CANFRENCH. But, more importantly, for it to be relevant we'd need to establish that that one of those airports in France with an accent in the name has no accent in standard English usage (as we have established through consensus here on Wikipedia in respect of Montreal, Quebec, Quebec City, etc.). Even then, it might just be a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How English Wikipedia deals with names in France is a good guide on how to deal with pages in Quebec. WP:CANFRENCH gives us permission to use English names if they are commonly used but this does not mean we should. -- Kayoty (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. For Montreal, it actually tells us what form to be using insofar as a MOS can do so. It doesn't give editors discretion to, say, refer to the province's largest City as Montreal or Montréal, depending on what their mood fancies on any given day. For other names, it also tells how we should be approaching the question. The question here is whether the the common usage of the airport name in the English language has no accent (i.e. follows the standard established here on Wikipedia for the city) or whether common usage leans the other way or is inconclusive (in which case we'd defer to the official name). Not sure how your bald statement about the list of airports in another country is a "good guide" addresses the other issues I suggested made it irrelevant.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the accent – Most Quebec place names are left in the original spelling - Trois-Rivières, Chicoutimi-Jonquière, Rivière-du-Loup and the like aren't blindly turned into "three rivers" or "wolf river", so tinkering with names in this way is the exception, not the rule. K7L (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should read the applicable MOS at WP:CANFRENCH and Bearcat's comments above. Where it has been established that the non-accented/English name is the standard usage in English, that's what we use on Wikipedia (e.g. Montreal), but absent that (if the accented name/French is standard, or usage is inconclusive) we use the accented/French name (e.g. Trois-Rivières). And that approach is used widely in Canadian media (see, for example, this recent Globe and Mail article on the measles outbreak in Quebec, which refers to Montreal and the St. Lawrence River, but also to Trois-Rivières and Lanaudière. So not sure how the original spelling of places like Trois-Rivières is relevant to our usage of Montreal and Quebec. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose – Firstly, I find Bearcat's comments above tremendously insightful. I am not convinced by the arguments in the Vancouver example that the hyphen excludes the city's name from being part of the proper noun that is Montréal-Mirabel International Airport. It's hard to determine, though, when local English-language news refers to it simply as "Mirabel."[2][3][4] However, like many of you (I suspect), I really don't care as long as there is a redirect. It's not like the é is an unrecognizable symbol to unilingual English speakers. - Sweet Nightmares 14:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Montréal–Mirabel International Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Montréal–Mirabel International Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100726155743/http://www.nationalpost.com:80/opinion/columnists/Death+dreams+Mirabel/3316714/story.html to http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/Death+dreams+Mirabel/3316714/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Language laws and the airport

@JoshDonaldson20: You have made an edit claiming that the demise of the airport here is because of the language laws. Whether it's true or not is secondary to whether it is properly sourced. Your edit is actually completely unsourced and appears to be WP:OR as the blog entry you have used as a source doesn't even say what you're saying in your edit, (that the language laws had this effect on the airport). Besides, blog entries like this are not considered WP:RS. You have replied in the edit summary suggesting that this is all okay because there was other information being replaced that was also unsourced. This is irrelevant and that information should be dealt with separately anyways. Air.light (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the language laws, I've already reorganized the other information to make it flow better. All three reasons for the demise the airport, while not fully unsourced, provide a good discussion point for expansion and research. The alternative is just to blank most of the article. JoshDonaldson20 (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realize that we simply cannot have original research in the article? Reorganizing the other information is fine but drawing our own conclusions and adding that to the article as if it were fact is against Wikipedia policy. Please remove the part of your edit that states: "The provincial language laws, Bill 22 which made French the official language of the province and Bill 101 which largely banned the usage of non-French languages, caused an exodus of residents and businesses while also reducing the attractiveness of Montreal for immigrants." Air.light (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That portion was actually taken from the Charter of the French Language article, plus I added sources. The language laws are worth mentioning in this article as the laws were implemented around the time that Mirabel opened. I known that a previous version of Mirabel Airport mentioned Montreal's decline relative to Toronto, so its a likely reason why air traffic to Montreal failed to reach projections. JoshDonaldson20 (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will comment that stating "The alternative is just to blank most of the article" is very seldom helpful. It may be appropriate with regard to an unsourced biography of a living person, but with regard to an article about an airport, it appears to be uncooperative. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Montréal–Mirabel International 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 07:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Montréal–Mirabel International 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) 19:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved b uidhe 04:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

International Aerocity of Mirabel → Montréal–Mirabel International Airport – Revert undiscussed move, as "International Aerocity" is a trade name that has not been adopted in reliable sources. Instead, variants of "Mirabel Airport" predominate: [5], [6], [7]. Conifer (talk) 06:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Common name. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:04, 17 April 2020 (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.