User talk:Danners430/Archive 7

Was I right to do this? (diff) Feel free to act as you see fit. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:52, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Can you keep an eye on Divi Divi Air? Thx. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

There's an edit there (diff) that you may consider to be unsourced. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

The charter flights here done on behalf of the Nordic travel companies Apollo, Ving and TUI does not operate as schedule passenger service and therefor new routes does not always get that much attention as regular schedule routes, therefor less news articles. Please check the references before you do anything, then you will find that there actually are operating flights as i have stated. Trdfly (talk) 22:50, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Sources are not optional - they are mandatory. As for the removal of the airline homepages - if you can show me where on that homepage it states the route flies, I'll happily revert. But I looked and I saw a classic airline homepage with booking links etc. nothing that unequivocally states that that specific route is being flown. And that's before we consider WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT which states third party sources should be used. Oh, and why are you restoring unreliable sources (WP:AEROROUTES) and adding more unsourced content? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 22:59, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, I must correct myself - I was thinking of another edit I did recently that used the same cite name… the cite isn't an airline homepage. However it does still go against WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 23:07, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I looked at your RSN discussion about FlightRadar24.com, which is mostly dying down. I read through the airport RFC again. The important thing for me is that the question get firmly settled, not that it be any particular option 1–5. (You may have noticed that I haven't !voted, though I'm willing to if it might help settle it one way or the other.)

The next RFC is supposed to be about settling the type of sourcing needed. I'm currently thinking that it needs two up-front 'warnings':

• This RFC is about airPORT articles (not airLINE articles).
• In the prior RFC, the community decided to have _____ information in airport articles about airlines and destinations (e.g., a factual statement that Airy Airlines flies from this airport to Akron). This RFC is not trying to re-litigate that decision. This RFC is about the type of source that is (at least minimally) acceptable for supporting the information that the previous RFC decided to have in airport articles.

Does that seem appropriate to you?

WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:15, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Aye it would make sense :) honestly have no idea how the RfC is going to pan out at this stage - haven’t been counting votes, but it seems somewhat split Danners430 _{tweaks made} 06:06, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I counted up the other day. It was more than 50% in the 1–2 range, and the rest split more evenly than I expected. 3 is not as popular as I expected, and 5 is literally infinitely more popular than I expected (I expected zero support for it). Several of the editors who preferred 4 were predictable (i.e, I could have told you a year ago how they would vote on a hypothetical RFC about this subject, and they would vote the same on any subject), and I assume that several of the editors voting 1–2 are predictable for anyone who frequents airport articles.

If the result is disputed (and if it's not closed in the 1–2–3 range, we should expect at least a Wikipedia:Close review), I think we can expect some editors to argue for 1 being given preference as a "status quo" thing.

I don't know how you're feeling about it, but I'm very satisfied with the decision to separate the airPORT articles from the airLINE articles for this RFC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:15, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I understand... Sorry, for the time being I have no other image at hand... Maybe in future.... Tisistene (talk) 13:56, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder that you should take care not to exceed 3RR unless it's blatantly obvious vandalism. PhilKnight (talk) 14:39, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Aye that's why I stopped when I did and went to ARV instead Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:45, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Frankfurt Airport, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL and 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) 14:42, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I recently edited Kuwait International Airport to include a paragraph about Terminal 1, which is in the history section and looks like the following: "Terminal 1, which currently serves all airlines (excluding Kuwait Airways and Jazeera Airways, who are served by Terminal 4 and Terminal 5 respectively), was designed by Japanese architect Kenzo Tange and opened in 1979."

I also added the following sources to back up the paragraph: https://248am.com/mark/kuwait/kuwait-airport-before-and-after/, https://arab-architecture.org/db/building/kuwait-international-air-terminal-building, and https://www.tangeweb.com/works/works_no-43/. Is the paragraph good? Or does it need improvement? FSlolhehe (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

My main feedback would be to use full citations using templates such as Cite Web. The below notice explains it far better than I ever could, even though it'll look like I'm warning myself :D

I'm also not particularly sure about the first of those references - it looks awfully like a blog to me, and I can't find any sort of "About" page that details who writes/publishes the site... my concern is it could genuinely be a blog run by a blogger which could fail WP:SPS. Do you know any more about it? The other two sources are fine IMO. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:33, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree that I need to use full citations. As for the first reference, it's actually a blog, and that's my fault. Sorry. He (the blogger) did a good job in terms of explaining stuff, but yeah, in the end, he's a blogger and not a reliable news organization. Also, I'm unable to find a news article that details the opening of Terminal 1 in 1979. FSlolhehe (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Danners430,

Based on Planespotters and recent photos, N8620H no longer appears active with Southwest. I’m sharing this for awareness in case a reliable secondary source becomes available

Planespotters.net

Jetphotos

Let me know!

Thanks!

Arslan Arslan.plane.lover (talk) 04:37, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Hyderabad Airport has been operating for 2 decades, and it is the 4th busiest airport in India. How can you just randomly go and delete destinations? The destinations without citations are those that were added before there were online articles about them. So stop being a BS, and start focusing on Airports like ORD and JFK, which have a zillion plus destinations with no citation, https://www.flightconnections.com/flights-from-hyderabad-hyd. Check that for more. Saurabhsarkarss (talk) 03:28, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, consider this your only warning about WP:CIVIL - the comment you deleted on your talk page and the comment above both contain insults which go directly against that policy. Secondly, it doesn't matter how long or not a route has been operating - it still requires a reliable source. Our own knowledge of a route operating isn't a reliable source - it's WP:OR. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 06:58, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

if you feel like it's an Insult, then it's your problem! Don't try to threat me, go and improve your own english, first of all. Saurabhsarkarss (talk) 11:10, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Final warning. If you continue with personal attacks and ignore our civility policy, you will find yourself at WP:ANI. That's not a threat - it's standard procedure if users are unable to follow Wikipedia policy.

And stop restoring unsourced content and reverting other constructive edits - again, again, policy. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:12, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Do I care you think? Saurabhsarkarss (talk) 11:14, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, if you are going to restore the routes with reliable sources (for which I would be grateful), then do not simply revert - if you look at the diff, there are significant other edits that were made beyond removing the routes which you are undoing, including maintenance fixes, improving references, removing unreliable sources and tagging other content in the article which is unsourced. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 07:06, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I will do whatever I want, don't try to Interfere Indian Airports, first of all. Looking for reliable sources it seems? lmao. Saurabhsarkarss (talk) 11:11, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Hammonton Municipal Airport. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Electricmemory (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Maybe try verifying before deleting? I just flew into Monterrey International Airport today on United and to claim it isn’t verified that United and several other airlines fly in there shows no attempt to verify or even just use common sense has been made. ~2025-43438-15 (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok then - where's your reliable source? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 07:55, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Right here for starters: https://aeropuertomonterrey.oma.aero/en/flights/airlines--routes.htm —- three second google search. Also, please take a look at what WP:V actually says. A fact or claim is "verifiable" if a reliable source that supports it could be cited, even if there is no citation for it in the article at the moment. Whether or how quickly material should be removed for lacking an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step to removing unsourced material, to allow references to be added. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before removing or tagging it. ~2025-43438-15 (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest you also have a read of WP:BURDEN. You've correctly quoted the first sentence, but the second sentence is equally important - The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing one inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. You providing the source here on the talk page is all well and good - but it must be in the article supporting the edit you made.

Also, that particular source is a primary, non-independent source which fails WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT, which summarises a community RfC which states that routes should only be included in airport destination tables if there are independent sources sufficient to satisfy WP:DUE.

Finally, is this related to the matter that Electricmemory was discussing, or did you mean to start a new section on this talk page? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:39, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, not trying to be difficult. I acknowledge the resulting burden although might not have made the same deletion decision. Not the same matter as Electricmemory was raising and agree this discussion could be its own section. Is the following source sufficiently independent and reliable? https://www.flightradar24.com/data/airports/mty/routes — I’m willing to update the table instead of just restoring existing content. The incomplete table feels a little silly to someone who is actually familiar with the airport. ~2025-43438-15 (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

No worries - I'll separate the sections and outdent accordingly. As for that source, I'm afraid that's not reliable I'm afraid - it was discussed at WP:RSN, and the general consensus is it's WP:SYNTH to use it to verify routes. What we really need is something from an independent source which states the route is operating - a great example being a news outlet mentioning the route, perhaps because it was announced or in passing in an article. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 23:06, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@Danners430 read WP:PRESERVE. Electricmemory (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@Danners430 You keep quoting WP:BURDEN yet seem to conveniently ignore the section "Whether or how quickly material should be removed for lacking an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step to removing unsourced material, to allow references to be added. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before removing or tagging it." It is far more important to WP:PRESERVE content rather than remove it. Electricmemory (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Danners430,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Volten001 ^☎ 06:13, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Volten001 ^☎ 06:13, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Dear Danners430. I have just made a new temp account after my old one glitched and I had to make a new one. I checked one of the pages I edited to see that it was locked for disruptive editing. I would like to say sorry. My temp account was one of the people editing, though I was just doing grammatical errors and adding links. I should have checked if the information was true, and I am sorry for any trouble that it may have caused. I also want to make clear that this temp is NOT a sock puppet. I want to try to make constructive edits on Wikipedia and make it better. The reason I came to you was to make sure that if I did anything wrong, I at the very least apologized for it. Happy New Year from ~2026-21637 (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Which temp account was yours as there was a lot going on in that page? Or just link one of the edits you made. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:04, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

The temp account was ~2025-38174-90. ~2026-21637 (talk) 12:28, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah right - it looks like none of your edits were reverted so they should still be there. The best thing to do if you want to contribute while it’s still protected is either make an account, or post on the article talk page requesting someone make an edit. Just make sure to detail exactly what it is you want to change, so that another editor understands the request and can implement it. There’s guidance on WP:ER about the process. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:41, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I did't add any information to the article, I just reverted your removal of an absolutely massive amount of information, most of which was true, because that info was unsourced. Why not look for sources instead? ~2026-34039 (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:V, removing content without sources is explicitly permitted. And per WP:BURDEN, it's the responsibility of the user that adds or restores content to verify it with reliable sources. Additionally, you removed a whole screed of perfectly good and reliable sources that had been added since the removal. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:36, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

If airlines, airports, and flight trackers are unreliable, how do you suggest adding real information to pages that are ridiculously inaccurate? this is a joke, right? Can you please explain how an airline listing their specific destinations is unreliable? can you please explain how to actually make these pages useful? because at the moment they are not. and you're hurting the fix. Smooth pappa (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I haven't said they're unreliable - only flight trackers are unreliable, not because they're inaccurate but because they're WP:SYNTH. They were even discussed at WP:RSN with that conclusion. Airline and airport pages however go against community consensus at WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT - a consensus I disagree with, and when the current RfC regarding airports concludes I intend to have one regarding the sourcing in the hope it can be changed. However for now that is community consensus on the sourcing of these lists. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:24, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Dear Danners430, I found some sources that show that FedEx Express operates routes at Jakarta to Singapore/Guangzhou airports. I found some reliable sources: it's from a reliable Indonesian news outlet reporting a verifiable event, confirming FedEx’s physical facility at CGK. Also theres this one from AviationPros and also one from FedEx's offical Indonesian website: and lastly from Flightradar24 and Flight Aware: , . Please look into these WamonWiki (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I also found this source from FedEx: WamonWiki (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

They all look good except from Flightradar and Flight Aware - we can’t use them to verify routes being flown, as that would be WP:SYNTH. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:39, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok so I didn't find any sources for Jakarta to Guangzhou flights but I think I found this source for Jakarta to Singapore: which mentions that cargo from Jakarta will be flown to Singapore. WamonWiki (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I have recently found this video about FedEx Express Guangzhou to Jakarta, but im pretty sure it's from an unreliable source but from FedEx themselves (Facebook): WamonWiki (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I would also like to show this source that mentions flights from Guangzhou to Jakarta: WamonWiki (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I see another editor has already addressed the error in your reversion of my edit and the matter appears to be resolved. However, to answer your question on my talk page, most of the routes listed are not explicitly sourced (which is true of all airport articles). A basic search of flight schedules would confirm the info I had provided, and as the other editor already pointed out, it actually WAS referenced elsewhere in the article. airport_master (talk) 19:53, 06 January 2026 (UTC)

I’ll have to correct you - no, it absolutely is not true of all airport articles. The vast majority of airport articles have sources for each individual route - and indeed, if there isn’t a source in the article for content in the article then that content doesn’t belong there.

The problem in the case of your edit was you made use of a source that was already in the article, but didn’t in any way point to it - you didn’t make any mention in the edit summary of it, and you didn’t update the access date as is required. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 22:59, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Until someone adds a 5-6 year old newspaper mention on Tarom flying to a particular city that has been served consistently for decades should we have it appear as if they fly only to TLV from their main hub? That to me seems as grossly misleading of who flies where from OTP. Even more so for the country's flag carrier. Ian 1975 (talk) 13:10, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

So what do you propose - we violate WP:V and add unsourced content? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:11, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I propose that we are not such strictlers by a rule and display the actual destination list of TAROM with the "citation needed" note until a news site source is added. Ian 1975 (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Then we violate WP:V. No. Sorry, but no. If content doesn’t have a source then, to put it frankly, it doesn’t belong on Wikipedia. I’m hoping that the RfC that’s ongoing regarding these lists can be closed sooner rather than later so that a second RfC regarding the sourcing of these lists can be held. The outcome of that might then allow for the use of the airport website or the airline website, but for now we can’t due to WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. What we absolutely are NOT doing is adding more unsourced content when editors are actively trying to reduce the level of unsourced stuff. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:21, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

All content was sourced. But some busybodies decided that many years long news articles from various websites are a more reputable source than routesonline. So we are now at the point were highly inaccurate destination lists exist BUT some strictler admins are happy that their new rules are followed. Ian 1975 (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Then it’s not content that I removed - when I removed Aeroroutes or RoutesOnline, I have left them with CN tags since it’s only recently they’ve been agreed as not reliable. If it’s stuff I’ve removed then they didn’t have sources at all. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:55, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello dear Danners. I see that since you're so invested in Romanian aviation, presumably as a non-romanian, please may you check flightradar24 which mind you is live FLIGHT TRACKER. (presumably the most prominent in modern aviation). Here you can clearly see in detail which flights are timetabled from Bucharest Otopeni as of today into the new week (January 2026).

Using this, can you please ensure that you don't abuse the edits on the Bucharest OTP Page by grossly undermining the actual route map? Otherwise I'm afraid this will count as deliberate misinformation and inaccurate representation of reality. https://www.flightradar24.com/data/airports/otp/routes ~2026-18118-4 (talk) 12:08, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Flightradar24 is not a reliable source to verify routes, as was discussed at WP:RSN only a few weeks ago - it is WP:SYNTH. Reliable sources are required, not optional, for content on Wikipedia, and current community consensus (recorded at WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT) is that independent sources be used. However, that is not why your edit was reverted - your edit was reverted ebcause you restored tens of unreliable sources to the article, namely WP:AEROROUTES, along with reverting other constructive changes. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:10, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Alright. Let's take an example such as Ryanair from Bucharest to London Stansted. In your edit, you clearly took this particular route out, even though it is actively flown 3-4 times daily, and bookable via Ryanair's website. https://www.ryanair.com/flights/gb/en/flights-from-london-to-bucharest

Is the ticketing system a reliable enough source for you? Or solely this Aeroroutes website is the only one that will suffice? ~2026-18118-4 (talk) 12:13, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

You seem to have completely ignored everything I just wrote. Aeroroutes is not reliable, so no it will not suffice. The Ryanair website is a primary source, so it fails WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. A reliable, independent source is needed, and neither of those are. Bear in mind WP:TRUTH applies - Wikipedia is not a collection of unsourced statements, it is an encyclopedia based on facts with reliable sources. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:15, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Appoligize for the remove of a section. That was a accident....

But i noticed on the administration page, about the situation.

Topics its about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Airport_destination_lists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Constantly_destroying_of_a_wikiproject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_City_International_Airport

Cheers. Erobran (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Danners430, you can find the discussion here. Best, 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 15:53, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

For future info, please follow the instructions on the ANI page, which tell you to use a specific notice - Template:ANI-notice. However, no harm done - just making you aware for the future. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:54, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on the 21 Air cleanup!! Hawkinsw2005 (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

seeing as they're all going this year I'd say 2026 is more accurate Brian Hawthorn (talk) 11:40, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:43, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh, British Rail Class 455.

It's simple - that parameter shows the current state of the fleet. They are currently still in service, so they are "presently" still in service. Per WP:CRYSTAL we don't say they've been withdrawn until that has actually happened. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:44, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

that's just stupid Brian Hawthorn (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

That's just how Wikipedia works. My best advice if you disagree would be to start a discussion on the article talk page so that other editors can join the discussion. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:03, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

so even though it's obvious that the class will be going completely out of service this year we have to keep it as present. I believe that's illogical, but if that's how things are then so be it. Brian Hawthorn (talk) 13:11, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

~2026-21637 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

have fun eating it, my friend made these! ~2026-21637 (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I have been wondering about a lot of airline destinations lists lately. I just discovered Frankfurt, where Lufthansa now only has a handful of destinations. I know that there have been discussions on and subsequently agreeing on the lack of reliability of Aerorutes, but since it has been so widely used, how is one supposed to find any other sources for certain destinations? An example could be Lufthansa's flight from FRA to LHR, a route that has been served for decades. It is highly unlikely that anyone would mention this in any form of source today, because of the longevity of the service. I do know that one source is OAG's database of flight schedules. However, that is not an accessible source, unless you work in the general aviation industry and your company has a subscription for the database, as it only allows access for business purposes. Where else might you find schedule overviews of such extent available to all? Mikk784mhp (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

There are thousands of news articles written on a weekly basis - all it needs is a single passing mention that "airline x also flies to y" and you've got a source.

Note by the way - in the Frankfurt article, to my knowledge no routes were removed because they used Aeroroutes as a source… as far as I can remember, when I cleaned that article up I removed Aeroroutes and left CN tags where I had removed the source. I only removed routes without any sources at all. The recent reversions were restoring the unreliable sources and in doing so actually removing some reliable sources which had been added in the interim. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 23:19, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

The destinations have been removed now though. It only came to my attention because of that. I was just thinking that it would be somewhat of an everlasting job to re-add all the destinations. A CN makes better sense, as you did. Mikk784mhp (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah, it may have been one of the IP edits then - without looking at the page history (in bed on my phone, so a tomorrow job!) I couldn't say. But once they're removed that's really it… we can't restore unsourced content without sources. It is a big job, but absolutely doable… and one that needed doing either way, given the sources needed adding regardless of whether the routes had been removed or not. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 23:27, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

That is exactly what I’ve been doing. I have spent hours sourcing these routes. Looking through them, it’s stunning how many routes have no sources at all. Google a route and like Danners430 said above, there are very few routes that don’t have some media outlet that’s covered it.

One of the biggest problems I’ve seen is old sources. I was adding sources this morning for Tampa International Airport and some routes are still valid, but the only source I could find was 2014-2016. Boomersooner6553 (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

https://www.railjournal.com/fleet/sncf-launches-project-botox-to-extend-tgv-fleet-life/ Last line mention swapping tgv duplex motor cars with reseau motor cars french wiki list des tgv conform observed swapping and reforming of new trainsets. So if sncf is not official communication noting is allowed to be publiced? https://www.railjournal.com/fleet/sncf-launches-project-botox-to-extend-tgv-fleet-life/ ~2026-45223-9 (talk) 11:44, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

And who are you? If you're the editor whose edit was reverted, please log in. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:45, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

To answer the question though - look at the edit summary of the reversion. It was reverted because the editor added Wikipedia as a source, and Wikipedia isn't a reliable source per WP:CIRCULAR. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:55, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok I will as the paid website as source https://railcolornews.com/2024/05/01/passenger-the-end-of-tgv-pos-sncf-introduced-the-new-tgv-p-duplex/ . Kristof vt (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the message that you sent here, i'd like to mention that all i did was revert said unsourced additions / removals; that user removed some links and i restored them. also yeah i've noticed an insane amount of ip's editing random stuff in those airport articles, what should we do? Emayeah (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

No, you restored the unsourced content. The IP removed content that was tagged with citation needed - this is permitted by WP:V. Personally I would have left it for a while longer, as the point of those tags is to give time for sources to be added. But it’s still permitted to remove them. Once they’re done however, per WP:BURDEN we can’t restore them unless we give a reliable source. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:24, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

sure enough, but given the user's talk page having multiple unsourced warnings, i erred on caution and undid those removals Emayeah (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

just asking though, is there an SPI regarding this airplane mess? Emayeah (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

SPI? What for? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:47, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

there are multiple ip's editing airport articles in droves Emayeah (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Well yeah - there are thousands of unregistered users. There’s nothing unusual about that. It’s only SPI material if there’s reasonable suspicion they’re the same person using multiple accounts. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

yeah... anyways sorry for interrupting you, happy editing :) Emayeah (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2026 (UTC)