User talk:Danners430/Archive 5

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE Antonbabich (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Outdated source in case of airline routes is the source that, for example, states schedule for already finished IATA Season (eg NW24). Please do not revert edits aimed to delete misleading information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonbabich (talk • contribs) 13:25, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Context is my favourite garnish. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:35, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Although this has been an issues on all every airport pages since way before the pandemic, but I'm totally agree to takedown or remove all unsourced destinations though, like you did in Ninoy Aquino International Airport.. and tbh, i don't care if the unsourced destinations will be removed haha, as long as I or we'll find a reliable references to support on that route.. :) Drcarrot.phd (talk) 01:42, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

It's become the only real choice now, and even those pages where content has been readded… not all has. Meanwhile I'm "up at ANI" for doing so… such is Wikipedia life! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 01:46, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

yeahhh, if only the airport reference would be much reliable but as per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT says though plus WP:NOT DIRECTORY.. other users (even newbies or even didn't read what Wikipedia rules are) is kinda.... you know... anyway I hope this is the only solution you've/we've got to remove all unsourced destinations because some users even IP could added it back rip Drcarrot.phd (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Good to see Wibwob28 caged. Any idea who he/she is a sock of? I've thought for a while the style is familiar but just can't put my finger on it. Also, those multiple OAG references added in airport tables are, I suspect, total BS. They are offline references and I suspect they've been added just a mess with us. I don't have access to the paper copy referenced but given the difficulty in verifying them, the likely socking, and the overall bad behaviour, would it be reasonable to start removing them? 10mmsocket (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I have to say that unless I'm missing something, I don't really see them as a sock - I can't really point at anything that's reminding me of any other editor. As for the offline sources, I personally have no way of knowing, so I'm sticking to WP:AGF unless there's evidence to discredit the sources Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Thankis. Interestingly, OAG's paper guide will cease to be printed after December so it's of little use going forward. Until I can close that nagging doubt about sockpuppetry I'll remain sceptical. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

You recently deleted 90 percent of the cargo routes in the destinations table on the above wikipedia pages. I recently edited the route tables removing defunct routes and adding current routes. Inline with WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT guidelines i added a reliable real time flight tracking reference to all routes i added - and also references to routes which didn't already have a reliable real time flight reference. Each cargo route operated and flight playback was available.

The reference guidelines in the cargo section state the following:

Sources: Because cargo airline schedules are often less readily available than passenger schedules, a reliable source should be explicitly listed verifying the service of each cargo airline.

• The best source is typically the airline's schedule listing a flight number of a cargo-only service to the airport in question. If an airline cargo timetable is available, it should be listed as a reference, with the reference including the direct URL of the timetable and the publication or access date.
• If a timetable is not available and no other reliable source explicitly states that the airline operates a cargo flight to the airport, each destination should be justified by footnoting a flight number. URLs for cargo schedule/status on airport websites can be used. For areas of the world with air traffic control tracking coverage (North America, Europe, Australia, and any flight flying through related airspaces, such as most of the North Atlantic and North Pacific), a flight number and a static URL of such a flight number (e.g. CPA095 on FlightAware within <ref></ref> tags) should be included so anyone can easily verify if the service still exists. For these types of references, the inclusion of an access date is particularly important.

Please kindly revert back all your edits in the Clark and Manila Airports section cargo section with immediate effect. This kind of mass deleting is not helpful nor fair to users in the wikipedia community who spend hours editing airport route data. If you believe a reference does not comply with the Wiki Airport guidelines, i suggest that instead of deleting mass lists of routes, please state why that reference doesn't follow current guidelines and mark the route as needing a new reference instead of deleting the route data indefinitely. I spent hours and hours over many weeks editing the cargo sections on Philippine Airports, all for you to delete everything in one swoop. Dootfish (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

No, I will not revert it back. The sources that were there were nothing more than live tracking history of one flight - it does not verify that that is a regular route, which is what's required. Wikipedia's Verifiability policy is not overridden by WikiProject guidelines.

I would instead suggest participating in the existing discussion at WP:Village pump (policy)#Airport destination lists - WP:NOTGUIDE?. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:14, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

To add - if you have reliable sources for the routes, then by all means of course add them back - but without reliable sources, they shouldn't be there. I'm sorry that your work, which is invaluable, has been removed - it's not meant as a personal vendetta against anyone; but the verifiability of these tables has been a mess on a large scale for a while, which is what I'm working to tidy up. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:16, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

In reference to cargo flight schedules, flight-tracking websites provide the most accurate and up-to-date information for real-time cargo operations. They are far more reliable than outdated press releases, which quickly become obsolete if not removed. Without a flight number, it’s impossible to verify whether a cargo route is still active or has been discontinued. By simply clicking the flight data reference and reviewing playback, one can easily confirm the schedule. Every cargo flight you removed was a scheduled service, not a charter. Unfortunately, it seems there’s little point in continuing this discussion, as your approach appears more focused on removing content than on ensuring accuracy. I followed the guidelines below in good faith, yet you applied flawed reasoning. It’s hard not to conclude that your intent is to destroy the effort and dedication others have contributed.

As per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT - Cargo section

• If a timetable is not available and no other reliable source explicitly states that the airline operates a cargo flight to the airport, each destination should be justified by footnoting a flight number. URLs for cargo schedule/status on airport websites can be used. For areas of the world with air traffic control tracking coverage (North America, Europe, Australia, and any flight flying through related airspaces, such as most of the North Atlantic and North Pacific), a flight number and a static URL of such a flight number (e.g. CPA095 on FlightAware within <ref></ref> tags) should be included so anyone can easily verify if the service still exists. For these types of references, the inclusion of an access date is particularly important.

Dootfish (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I have to repeat though that WikiProject guidelines (which WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT is) doesn't overrule Wikipedia policy, those being WP:RS and WP:V. My concern is that if this is the only reliable way to source these routes, then perhaps they shouldn't be included at all - that's why the discussion at the village pump is open, I'd encourage you to participate there as everyone has a perfectly legitimate voice. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:50, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

If that’s the case, you might as well delete every airport destination page on Wikipedia, since the tables would end up completely inaccurate. The vast majority of passenger destination tables—unlike the cargo sections—are kept reasonably up to date. Common sense needs to prevail here. The cargo sections are a mess, and the only way to make them more accurate is by using flight tracking data references for every route. Regarding your invitation to discuss at the village pump - it would seem the agenda has already been set. There's no point in discussing further. Dootfish (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Keen an eye on 85.199.232.66 (talk · contribs) who is deleting loads of routes quoting non-independent sources i.e. airport or airline, and is also quoting press articles that talk about capacity reduction but with no specific confirmation of if or when actual routes will end. If necessary I'm also requesting protection if there's an issue on those articles. Thanks as always. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:15, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm kind of taking a back seat when it comes to WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT at the moment while this discussion at WP:VPP goes on, but I'll keep an eye.

Sidenote, when I saw the section header, my mind immediately went to the Looney Tunes scene where Tom Cat spanks the young cat... "Bad IP!" Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:18, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

) No worries. I'm just doing an ANI on the IP at the moment.

10mmsocket (talk) 09:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Lemme grab some popcorn Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

There you go, looks like you need it now. --10mmsocket (talk) 11:16, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, honestly disputes like this is why I'm advocating for these lists to be removed. But like I said to the IP, those are discussions for the relevant locations Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:20, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I’m considering replacing the current cargo destinations table on the Clark Airport page with a new format—similar to the layout used on List of cargo airlines. The idea is to list each cargo airline alongside its country flag and country name. Obviously I’d include up-to-date sources. This approach would remove the need to list individual routes, which are often difficult to verify with reliable, current references. What are your thoughts? Dootfish (talk) 10:36, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd personally hold off before putting in a lot of effort until the discussion at WP:VPP has concluded, in case the consensus turns out to be to remove such lists altogether. While I'd personally support the idea (the current format is awful IMHO), I'd hate to see a lot of effort put in and possibly wiped out a week later if the discussion goes that way Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:40, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, i'll take your advice. Thanks Dootfish (talk) 11:10, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that I’m sorry for removing my message from Trainsfan13’s talk pages, it know it’s against the policy to delete talk page messages and I know that was wrong for what a I did. The reason why I did it is because I didn’t want to have anymore discussions with him anymore because he causes so much drama against users for a long time and yet he refuses to admit he isn’t wrong. I didn’t mean any harm, all I was trying to do is improve an article for readers, that’s all I was doing, because moving an image is completely harmless and he’s taking it to the extreme like it’s a threat to him. I also apologize to you when you got involved in the situation, I know the whole thing had nothing to do with you, I know you were just trying to help out like you always do. But I think it’s best for me to not report him, because if I do, he’s just gonna lie his way out of it. Again, I appreciate you trying to help me out, I wish we have more users like you. 2601:188:C405:F440:1190:2BC:D2C7:36BC (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

If you want to stop interacting with an editor, the best way to go about it is just to ignore them, and stop editing in areas they edit in. You are allowed to remove their messages on your own talk page - but I'd still listen to the concerns they raise. Not being involved in the dispute I have no idea whether the concerns are warranted or not, but it would be, in my opinion, foolish to not at least consider what they're saying and have a brief think about whether they have a point. Again, they may not have a point - but then again they could. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:53, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I completely understand, I am trying my best to ignore him, but he’s still continuing to blame me. There’s something about criticism he can’t handle. I was very cooperative with him numerous times and on his talk page in the past and as usual its rinse and repeat. 2601:188:C405:F440:6D3B:D814:C719:8C30 (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

If you are unable to avoid each other and this continues, my best advice would be to go to Dispute Resolution and let a third party decide. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:27, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Jefflin555 here. I added a source to the Royal Air Maroc page as requested, but I'm leaving all the secondary sources here for your reference in the event that you're not happy with the primary source. The thing is, I was on the WestJet version of their 787-9 last week, so I knew the layout.

Aircraft delivery records:
CN-RHA: https://aviation.flights/boe/787/64980
CN-RHB: https://aviation.flights/boe/787/64981
As you can clearly see, these were both meant for WestJet and have the WestJet lopa.

WestJet's 787-9 LOPA can be found here:
https://www.aerolopa.com/ws-789 (Note that RAM doesn't sell premium economy seats, so those are counted as economy seats in the RAM article.)

Seat maps shared by fellow netizens:
https://www.facebook.com/nshaviation/posts/welcome-on-board-royal-air-maroc-newest-787-dreamliner-the-cn-rhathoughts-of-the/988307399994180/
https://www.reddit.com/r/oneworld/comments/1hbtfho/whats_this_seats_configuration_on_royal_air/#lightbox

Jefflin555 _Contribs 19:29, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Just FYI, I went through a bunch of the now-blocked IP's references and a majority of them are just plain rubbish - self-published blogs and vague press release based articles that don't confirm any firm start dates. I looks like this editor's pattern is to either use personal knowledge then try to back up with whatever sources he can google to (vaguely) support it, or of course is just plain lying by putting in unsupported dates. I have reverted a lot but the ones which seem genuine and do quote a start date I have left in place. Six months though is a great result. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Not surprised tbh - I haven't been looking too closely lately, instead only dealing with obvious nonsense, as work has been hell…! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:36, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Another IP - not the same one but a long time abuser - currently edit warring at Birmingham Airport and Manchester Airport. Have RPP'd both and reported IP to AIV. I'm not going 3RR on this though unless they're blocked and/or the page is protected. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:36, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Good afternoon, got a small request. Could you please update the Singapore Airlines page by adding Vietnam Airlines as a codeshare partner. I understand that you have a policy of requiring valid sources first before doing the edit. Thus, I have provided 2 links as sufficient proof first. If you have any other questions do not hesitate and kindly approach me here. Thank you and hope to hear from you. The 2 links are https://www.vietnamairlines.com/us/en/vietnam-airlines/press-room/press-release/2025/0923-EN-Vietnam-Airlines-and-Singapore-Airlines-Launch-Codeshare-Services and https://www.singaporeair.com/en_UK/sg/corporate/newsroom/press-release/2025/july-september/singapore-airlines-and-vietnam-airlines-launch-codeshare-service/#:~:text=Customers%20of%20Vietnam%20Airlines%20and,effect%20on%2026th%20October%202025. 2401:7400:6023:C211:9D4:4680:E1CA:674D (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Would appreciate you watching Chiltern Railways as there's a potential edit war risk. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I do hope not… it’s on my watchlist anyway, and my face is getting reacquainted with my palm. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I have explained politely so hopefully the editor will find some sources and add them to both articles. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Up to you, but I'd just withdraw that RFC question about airline destinations. It has no hope of passing, and isn't the kind of question that the discussion was tending towards. FOARP (talk) 09:03, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

well what was the discussion tending towards? The discussion grew arms and legs, and while there (to me) seems to be obvious consensus to do *something*, the discussion seems to have completely petered out… I tried multiple times to get in touch with a couple of the contributors to find out what the next steps should be, and I've been blanked…

So let the discussion be archived and nothing happens when there's clear consensus that *something* needs to change, or….. well what? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:10, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

@FOARP seriously, can we please have a quick chat about this. I’m genuinely at a loss here - if an RfC is the wrong course of action the what on earth is? There’s clear consensus that something needs to change, yet I’ve tried to move things forward and it’s instantly blowing up in my face. So what is the next step? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:22, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

The downside of the RFC continuing from the POV of anyone dissatisfied with airport destination lists as they are presently is that there's inevitably going to be a stonking majority for them being kept that the advocates of such lists will use to justify everything they want to do regardless of whether it's completely against our PAGs, and as a reason to shut down any further discussion in the future. This was the mistake that was made with that silly double-barrelled RFC question early this year (which unified the advocates of airline lists and airport destination lists, but divided the opponents of them, with an inevitable result), and you can see people using that as a cudgel in this discussion.

Look at what people were suggesting in the discussion - some kind of explicit requirements regarding the sourcing, something about to what date they should be accurate for if the destinations change rapidly etc. etc. etc.

There's multiple Bad RFC !votes on the board already. If I were you I'd just them at their word and withdraw the RFC. FOARP (talk) 09:25, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

In that case one more question before I try and digest the crazy discussion, that being how best to withdraw it… Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Close the discussion yourself using the RFC closure template as withdrawn per the Bad RFC !votes.

The proposer of the RFC from earlier this year tried to withdraw, but they did it too late by which time the people who had previously said the RFC was bad had decided it was good (because they had seen that it could be used as a opportunity to build up a stonking majority in favour of never changing anything). So just do it now. FOARP (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I'll get that done as soon as my laptop decides it wants to behave itself. As for next steps, what would your suggestion be - if I've understood you correctly, another RfC but with a question specifically worded to pull from the seeming consensus established in the discussion, if I can figure out what that may be? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:37, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I think there were probably 2-3 things that were discussed in the discussion. Roughly speaking these were:

• Sourcing requirements for airport destination lists (e.g., has to be to a source gathering destinations for the airport, not just OR on airline websites)
• Content requirements for airport destination lists (e.g., "major" desinations only, whatever that means)
• Not having a list if the destinations can just be accomodated in a single sentence?

At least one thing from this list, with a bit of work-shopping with other editors to see if they make sense, should be OK. FOARP (talk) 09:53, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I suppose I could probably figure out a way to put a few options in the RfC opening statement, making it clear that this was what consensus seemed to indicate in the previous discussion, and suggest that other options are welcome Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:55, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd put up some options in a suitable place (can even just be a section here on your talk page) and ping the editors from the discussion to sound them out as to which they think are runners.

This is an area where there have been *a lot* of proposals over the years, few of which ever got anywhere. We can afford to take a bit of time to work on this. FOARP (talk) 10:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Aye not a bad idea… I'll similarly hold off on deprecating Aeroroutes when that discussion gets archived in a few days, to save too much going on at once. I'll put together a discussion here later on. Thanks for your assistance so far! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I think even just a "what to do about lists that are cited entirely to Aeroroutes and Routesonline?" discussion might be productive here.

Another idea might be requiring that, where covering something that changes rapidly, the list be sourced and accurate for a specific date. I know it's the manual of style, but MOS:LISTS might be a good place to take this? FOARP (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Well it would appear I’ve been beaten to it while recovering from this past weekend by doing absolutely nothing for a few hours… which I’m not complaining about! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:18, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

You've recently undone some of my edits at Condor (airline), stating "So we’re blanking sourced sections are we?" in the summary which is in fact far beside the reason for the edits. I removed a recently added statement regarding the average fleet age which in WP:AIRLINES is clearly stated we never mention, additionally the given reference was airfleets.net which has been considered unreliable for ages on here. Also someone added a new section lead stating Condor operates A319s which it clearly does not as sourced in the same section. You can argue the advertisement regarding the sustainability of their new A330s I removed can stay, I would consider it blatant promotion as the delivery was described in the article much more neutral beforehand though (hence the title was changed from "fleet" to the unusual "fleet and sustainability" by someone which is clearly not the intention of this article section but and obvious try to advertise the airline). Your response is quite simply rude and disregards my existing edit summaries explaining my removals were in line with our guidelines. Best regards. 2001:A61:12C1:2001:F14A:74EE:1DC2:1D96 (talk) 07:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Danners430. You have just removed some of my additions to a table in the coronation locomotive page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LMS_Coronation_Class - as they don't have citations.

However, none of the information in that pre-existing table has any immediate citations: so, if you want to be consistent (which is the basis of rigor) you would need to delete all the information.

The table doesn't have citations because the introduction above it provides the sources from which it is drawn. And, it is this same book from which I have added my additional information - which is citation 12 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LMS_Coronation_Class#cite_note-Baker-13.

Therefore, I'm curious as a new user: do want want to delete all the table's info pending citations (in every single cell?); allow my additions from the same source cited above; or would you like to edit to show a better way of attributing all this information to sources? 2A04:CEC2:5:636A:8108:84A3:CC5A:E571 (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, I suggest you read the notice at the top of this talk page, that says you should respond on your own talk page when I leave you a message there - there are already two there.

Secondly, if the source you're using for your edits is already in the article and already in the place it's meant to be, riddle me this - how am I meant to know that's the source you're using? If you used an edit summary and explained your edit, perhaps I and other editors would be able to know what it is you're doing. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page British Rail Mark 5 (InterCity 250), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh hush yo face :P Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

What would it be linking to anyways? LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Lol it kind of started at WP:RSN in the discussion about Grokipedia, where the majority vote has been yeet :D I'm mostly using it for silliness when nonsense crops up Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Your edits on Otopeni airports does not show the reality. More WIZZ air routes like BVA, Leipzig, Malmo, Maastricht are not in the WIZZ air system and you always put them back after someone deletes it. Paulska23 (talk) 05:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I've restored sourced information once, I don't "keep doing it" - and the reason is very simple… a user removing a large amount of well sourced information without any explanation. They didn't have an edit summary or anything. So how is an editor to discern that from vandalism? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 07:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

See better sources. WIZZ air does not operates flights form BVA, LEIPZIG, MALMO and MAASTRICHT to Otopeni anymore. See WIZZ air flight schedule and boarding pass.ro Also, WIZZ air will operate flight from Maastricht to BUCHAREST BBU stating march 2026. Leipzig does not appear anymore in WIZZ air rezervation system, same with BVA and Leipzig. Paulska23 (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

That's fair enough - but when someone removes sourced content from an article, they must explain why they're doing it in the edit summary. Can you understand why it was undone, given content was removed without any explanation? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I have noticed that you reverted some of my edits on Ed Daein Airport, and thank you for them. Occasionally, I will only use AI to quickly find older African press articles to checkout (some links can be dodgy). I will bring back the information from the first source as it does contain true content.

first source extract

The Sudanese Ministry of Defence signed a contract on Sunday with the Khartoum Airports Holding to implement the construction of airports in Central and East Darfur. The Ministry stated that the estimated costs of the new airports, to be built in Zalingei, capital of Central Darfur, and Ed Daein, capital of East Darfur, are US$ 25 million. The signing ceremony took place in the presence of Defence, Gen. Minister Abdel Rahim Mohamed Hussein, and the head of the Darfur Regional Authority (DRA), Dr El Tijani Sese. The DRA will contribute SDG 75 million ($13 million) in support of the construction of the two airports.

The other two sources can stay reverted until I find a more reliable source.

Regardless, thank you for your contributions against potential fictitious content! Bollardant (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, you cannot use AI to generate content for Wikipedia. There's no harm in using it to find sources as long as you manually verify the content of said sources to ensure it does indeed verify the content, but you cannot, per Wikipedia policy, use AI to generate your edits. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Why did you bring it back when he updated the version?? He just updated the numbers And airlines. ~2025-31228-35 (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Im updating it back becouse i have sourse i wrote the sourse, Its the best sourse for airlines fleets. Now im updating it back. ~2025-31228-35 (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source, go right ahead. But without a source it will be reverted under WP:V. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

No, Planespotters is not a reliable source per WP:PLANESPOTTERS. And even if it were, sources go in the article, not edit summaries.

Also courtesy pinging @Murgatroyd49 - existing discussion here. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

The easyJet base in Faro is seasonal, closing in October. Annual connections with Faro are made from other bases. Sources: (in Portuguese)'easyJet' reabre base de Faro para o verão de 2025 - Mais Algarve , EasyJet reabre base sazonal de Faro e anuncia operação com um total de nove aviões neste Verão | NewsAvia , easyJet reabre base de Faro para o verão de 2025 – PLANETALGARVE . Based on this information and consulting both the easyJet website and other sites, it is observed that flights scheduled as annual are not operated in November, December, January, February, and March. ~2025-31255-69 (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Great, but what you made your edit you removed the existing source and inserted the route without any source at all. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi i have a question why did you changed the page at LIST OF BAE 146 OPERATORS, i searched each one of the updated And these that i didnt check i didnt update on the page. And i even have 2 sources (Flightradar24 And combined with Planesspotters) ~2025-31228-35 (talk) 13:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Two issues here - firstly, where were those sources in your edit? Sources belong in the article so that any reader can verify them. Secondly, Planespotters is far from reliable - indeed it's deprecated per WP:PLANESPOTTERS, and Flightradar is often unreliable too depending on which part of the site you're using. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:57, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

You just dont believe the sources. ~2025-31228-35 (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

We certainly don't believe planespotters.net - and we cannot believe sources that you don't actually add. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Correct - I don't.

But it wasn't my decision to retire Planespotters - that happened before I even started looking in Aviation… it's listed at WP:PLANESPOTTERS. As for FR24 - that's more a question of WP:SYNTH… it might be an idea to start an RSN on that topic… Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Well I'm going to jump in here and suggest that you take a look at WP:PLANESPOTTERS which confirms that planespotters.net is not a source that can be trusted. You also suggest in an edit summary "updated the operators according to flightradar24, added active and parked". See WP:V - references must be verifiable and you didn't give any reference at all alongside the article content that you added. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

That report on my talk page gave me a double take too when I first saw it on my watchlist. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:27, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Yuuuuuuuuup - luckily the rollback shows you what you did… couldn't self-rv fast enough…

If you want me, I'll be hiding behind my sofa! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 22:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Please be advised that Ocjr opened Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Columbia Metropolitan Airport and named us both as parties to the dispute. I have already commented there. I was not notified on my talk page, but I will do the courtesy of letting you know the thread was opened. —C.Fred (talk) 03:13, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I left possible sources for Faro Airport routes on Faro Airport's Talk page. ~2025-31713-47 (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

As per your many recounts on aviation edits I gather you are also interested in aviation. The ambition for my edits is to avoid WP:SYNTH but it's hard to find updated aviation fleet articles or websites, even querying this issue with another editor. I can find no traditional articles that state when new aircraft are added as this happens frequently. I use flightradar24 as it's an approved and accurate source using ADS-B data to track flights, with flight numbers being shown on the aircraft log when they are completed. Being told that flightradar24 is the best option subsequently for this, if you review the Qantaslink fleet on flightradar24, VH-84O shows that it's flying for Qantaslink with an active registration on the CASA website. This being said however if you have any suggestions of websites that would solve this issue on all aviation pages it would be greatly appreciated to hear Jay330 (talk) 02:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

For fleet registration, honestly the best is to wait for official press releases from the airline. The problem with FR24 or registration records is that they show that one aircraft and only that aircraft. If that's what you're sourcing then that's fine, but if you're sourcing a fleet total figure, then that wouldn't work since the source doesn't give that number. I hope that's coherent given I've only just woken up! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 07:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

It's rare though that airlines publish press releases as aircraft are delivered. It could cause articles to be come outdated very quickly. A subsequent observation I've made is I think this is why most pages don't have references (or are very outdated) for fleets Jay330 (talk) 03:57, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

The thing is, Wikipedia isn't a news outlet - it doesn't need to have the most cutting edge and latest information, its about having verifiable information - WP:Verifiability not truth. We even have templates (Template:As of to deal with situations like this, to make it clear to the reader that the content is correct as of the last source update. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 07:38, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

An idea I had was about using the CASA website again but this time with a filter for the specific operator and aircraft type in the search bar. This gave me the 39 Q400 aircraft registered (inc. 84O). Would this then fix that issue as your not specifically referencing one aircraft but this time the entire fleet type? Jay330 (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Where does CASA get its data from? Just not familiar with that site :) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 07:14, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

CASA is the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and are the government authority who manages the rules and regulations of Australia's aviation industry. CASA directly manages all of the aircraft registrations active in Australian airspace and as such they data comes directly from them Jay330 (talk) 08:08, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah makes sense - yeah to me that sounds like it would be reasonable Danners430 _{tweaks made} 08:10, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Do me a 3RR favour and keep an eye on this. Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Looks up from playing Train Sim World 5 Hmm what? ;-) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:30, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Shakes head in despair... 10mmsocket (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Hopefully too early for train sims so maybe keep an eye on this one today, unless of course you're simulating rush hour? Air transports of heads of state and government - we have planespotters.net addict 10mmsocket (talk) 08:03, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Right now I’m busy with “Unsourced Content Simulator 2026”… see the section below and their contributions… Danners430 _{tweaks made} 08:04, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

b.t.w. I got rid of all references to jetphotos.com (except when used in external links) and I'm having a crack at airfleets.net as and when I have a few moments, but aeroroutes is a mammoth task - there's thousands of uses. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:23, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah it's gonna be fun… but it looks like the RfC on airport destination tables is going to get underway shortly, so perhaps something will change Danners430 _{tweaks made} 08:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Ping me when it does. I'm mostly staying away from airport articles for now. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC)