Talk:Nairobi airport fire

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

Should the title rather be "Nairobi Airport fire"?[edit]

It comes down to how to call this: An airport fire in Nairobi, or a fire at Nairobi Airport? I'd prefer the second reading, thus suggesting the capitalization of "Airport". It would also be in accordance with Düsseldorf Airport fire (but of course, that article's title might be changed as well).--FoxyOrange (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about "2013 fire at Nairobi Airport"? We don't know if this was the last time one of the airport terminals set ablaze. Maybe the same comment holds for Dusseldorf Airport.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree: The word 'airport' ought to be capitalized. Ali Fazal (talk) 12:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was an airport fire in Nairobi. There is no "Nairobi Airport" to speak of, nor has there been since 1978. Dusseldorf's airport name is Dusseldorf Airport (it dropped the International from its name in March 2013). There are no other notable fires at airports in Nairobi (whether it be JKIA, Wilson, or Moi Air Base), so I didn't use a year, though I don't necessarily object to its usage (future incidents may spawn a need for year usage, but it hasn't happened yet; and in Dusseldorf's case, one checking out the article may have no idea what year the fire occurred when searching for it). The term "airport" is not used as part of a proper noun, hence me creating the article with it in lowercase (similar to usage of the term "nightclub' in the article for The Station nightclub fire or "market" for the 2013 Kolkata market fire).Blackwarrior (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that "airport" should not be capitalized, for the cogent reasons stated by Blackwarrior. AfricaTanz (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, in this case "airport" is not a proper noun and need not be capitalized. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ops reestablishment move to another section?[edit]

Should the fact that ops were reestablished be in the summary of the incident? Since we previously used the Düsseldorf Airport fire article as a reference, most other articles regarding fires only describe the actual fire/incident (and perhaps a major impact or factoid regarding the type of fire) in the initial summary. I propose that ops reestablishment be moved to the Aftermath section. Blackwarrior (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just added that in the lead in order to have it included somewhere. Of course. you're free to move it to a more appropriate place if you consider that that improves the article.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]