User talk:Danners430/Archive 9

Hello, Danners430. Per your request, your account has been granted temporary-account-viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:

• You must not share IP address data with someone who does not have the same access permissions unless disclosure is permissible as per guidelines listed at Foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy.
• Access must not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).

It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:

• When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
• Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
• Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with one or more IP addresses (using the CIDR notation format).

Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visiting Special:Preferences. Happy editing! — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:33, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

The listing of unit numbers on the page for this type only cover six units. The numbers in the box next to it add to seven. There are only six 387/3s from my personal experience. StephenSmithUK (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure previous revisions of the article also showed only six 387/3s. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 23:43, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps now things have calmed down I can actually look at this (because I admit I forgot to at the time!) - I'm not sure where seven has come from... counting the unit numbers in the Unit Numbers column, there are actually five - so I think your original edit was correct, and my rv was incorrect. Perhaps the only feedback would be to make use of an edit summary to clarify you were simply aligning the number with the Unit Numbers column :-) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:17, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that out. StephenSmithUK (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Chronological order or by size? Settignano (talk) 10:35, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:40, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Pictures in chronological order or by aircraft size? Settignano (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd say chronological order personally, I'm just confused why you're asking me this? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:28, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Because you asked me a question... go back to your previous messages... Settignano (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I haven't asked you any questions here. It would help if you could link to where I left this question. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:15, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

My question was: which is the right way to insert aviation images/pictures in a page?

Chronological order or by aircraft size?

Thanks. Settignano (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@Danners430 Please excuse my intrusion here but I have several comments to add to your convo with @Settignano

1. Your previous conversation with Settignano was on his Talk page, 17 days ago (3rd March) and revolved around Bibliographies
2. Regarding the placement of images; my answer is that they may be placed in chronological order subject to other factors, such as the Infobox or lead image should be either current equipment, and/or most recognisable, regardless of age.
3. However today's issue concerns where the images are placed, and may point to a bigger underlying problem; see Delta Air Transport, which now features text squeezed between images placed both to the left and the right.
4. And finally (breaking news!) - I'm not 100% sure, but there may be an ongoing WP:SOCKPUPPET investigation. See WP:ANI#Personal attack by User:Settignano. I confess that I am now completely out-of-my-comfort-zone, and beginning to regret getting involved at all. Hope some of the above helps.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I have removed Settignano's reply, for the simple reason that I have no desire to get involved with this dispute which seems to have landed on my talk page. I've told both parties they're free to discuss at the relevant noticeboard, but it has nothing to do with me. For the time being, I'll continue to treat them both as any other editor, until such time as any action winds up being taken. Thanks for the heads up however.

I'm simply confused with regards to the question they posed - I don't have an opinion on what order images are posted, and honestly couldn't care less. My only interaction with them relating to images was reverting them placing images in a gallery, which I believe goes counter to WP:GALLERY. I can't even remember what it was they were doing now…! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:23, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sticking to the actual original question; in a typical airline article, I feel it kinda makes sense to match the images with the nearby text, if that is even possible. So against the History section, I would expect to see (for instance) a Douglas DC-3, followed by a DC-6, and then a Boeing 707, in chronological order. Images of the latest equipment 787s, Airbus A350 etc, can be matched up to "Current Fleet" later in the article. By accident, this often also results in an increase in "size", simply because few airlines start out with a 747 and end up with three Cessna Caravans. You say you don't have an opinion, and my view is that the question shouldn't even need asking.

However, I'm sure I have read that before changing an image, you should either be 100% certain it is an uncontroversial edit, or be prepared to justify it with a solid edit summary and/or something on the Talk page. I would quote a relevant MOS or WP, but I seem to spend half my (editing) life using the wrong search criteria and ending up lost in the archives. {time passes slowly} Bingo! In the case of our friend at Delta Air Transport he should read MOS:SANDWICH.

And, after several more minutes of deep diving, this from WP:AIRCRAFT-IMAGES

• Many existing images used in aircraft articles have been carefully selected to illustrate specific variants, angles of view or aircraft features. These images should not be deleted from articles without discussion and consensus that this action will improve the article on the article's talk page. Images may be added to the article without removing or replacing existing images without discussion.

Against that, I often find that previous editors have simply shoe-horned the first available image regardless, in which cases I am sometimes guilty of just ripping it out, although I always leave a good edit summary. {apologies for waffling on, and on, and on}

WendlingCrusader (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello. We have spoken before. I would like to know why Continental Airlines Flight 1404 was deleted from the Accidents and Incidents section of the article. The Boeing 737-500 exited the runway at DEN and caught fire and burnt out, destroying the aircraft. Five people were seriously injured and 38 overall injuries, but no fatalities, the most serious incident DEN has ever had in its 31 year history. As you emphasized, WP:AIRCRASH, its fits one of the criteria as there was a hull loss in the incident. I believe this incident should be put back and I would source this incident with the actual NTSB report. When you did this with Orlando International Airport, you left a 2021 incident intact in which a small bizjet went off the runway and was written off with no injuries. The DEN incident was way more serious, deaths could have occurred. I'm on board with you as far as incidents go, there are many incidents and accidents at other airports that should be removed and I am on board with WP:AIRCRASH criteria, this incident should be put back. Thank you for your time.Theairportman33531 (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

The text that was in the article is as follows:

On December 20, 2008, Continental Airlines Flight 1404, a Boeing 737-500 bound for Houston–Intercontinental Airport, veered off the left side of runway 34R and caught fire during its takeoff roll. Thirty-eight passengers and crew sustained injuries, but there were no fatalities. Although the runway was clear of snow and ice, crosswinds of 31 knots (57 km/h; 36 mph) were reported at the time. On July 13, 2010, the NTSB determined the probable cause to be the captain’s cessation of right rudder input, which was necessary to maintain directional control of the aircraft.

Going by what is written there, it doesn't meet WP:AIRCRASH. Caught fire sounds more like it was a small engine or wheel fire that was put out, not a full hull loss! If what you say is true, and it did burn out and was a hull loss (I currently have no way of accessing the sources as I don't have a working VPN), then yes absolutely reinstate it as it would meet AIRCRASH - I would update the text to actually say that though, as let's be honest the above text makes it sound like a run-of-the-mill evacuation incident! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:55, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Sure, I will give it a try and reinstate the incident using your guidelines and the NTSB Report from 2010. Thanks!```` Theairportman33531 (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I reinstated the incident, used Aviation Safety Network for incident, which I know is user generated, but they have 5 or 6 good clear photos of the accident airplane. Also used NTSB report as well. After seeing the photos, no way that aircraft was getting repaired LOL. Check it out when you can. Thanks. Theairportman33531 (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

If it's user generated why exactly is it being used as a citation? Citations are for reliable sources, not user generated content… feel free to put the images in the external links, but user generated content is not reliable sources. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:05, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Danners, I have noticed in 2023 you flagged a user for doing unsourced edits. I have looked at their prior edits and have still doing over these 2 years is it possible for you to do something? The user is User:Tbrookes.23. It would be appreciated. Cheers! Busandtrainfannorthwestgeography (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I cannot do anything. What you’re doing by trying to communicate with them is the best course of action. If you’ve tried a few times to communicate with them and they’re ignoring your attempts and the behaviour is continuing, then a report at ANI might be the best option. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 07:24, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

ty Busandtrainfannorthwestgeography (talk) 08:28, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Laredo International Airport - Did you place the Chicago O' Hare Airport as a future destination for Laredo International Airport on the map - By United Airlines? If so, what is your source and when is the service supposed to begin? Just curious. Thank you. -- Patrick Deltaflyer12 (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Negative - I almost never add to the maps. You should be able to find it in the page history. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:02, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I do not know if you noticed my contribution without rest to the above mentioned pages. I would very much like to have your feeedback. Thanks. Settignano (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Danners430, Recently you have redirected an edit on the route Kolkata to Navi-Mumbai operated by IndiGo. However I've booked a flight for 4th April, and I can confirm that the inauguration is on 29th march. However, there was only one source for the route which was redirected by you 2 days ago. I've sent a letter to The Times of India regarding this route, and didn't receive a reply yet.

If possible, you may undo your redirection that you did on Kolkata Airport Article. ArinGhosh123 (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

So I assume you have a reliable source for the route and not just your own knowledge? Without that no, I will explicitly not be reverting my edit - unsourced content has no place on Wikipedia. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:05, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

let me ask you again, WAS THAT EDIT UNSOURCED? It was clearly sourced and if needed proof, check it once again. ArinGhosh123 (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

The edit I most recently reverted used an unreliable source - WP:AEROROUTES, so it's as good as unsourced. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:19, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

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: Removing extensive material from airport sites around the world, even destinations, airlines and routes that serve the airport. In order to keep the integrity of the wikipedia page intact, i suggest you look up the routes yourself before cutting them out of the wikipedia page. Certain routes have existed for decades, hence there are no sources other than airline booking systems, airport websites or flightradars to verify them. This needs to be taken into consideration when you edit as extensively as you do, and without having any information that directly contradicts what is already stated. ~2026-18010-09 (talk) 01:44, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates on WP:Verifiability not truth. If something isn't sourced, then it either needs sourcing or removing from the article. The amount of unsourced content in these articles is concerning, so I'm absolutely not watching more get added. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 08:12, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I do value your noble intentions, but I would encourage you to reread the concerns above. Although I can't tell whether you are a bot or a human, you must be able to answer the question with regards to the sources being airport websites, airline websites, and flighradars for conforming routes that have existed for decades. ~2026-18604-95 (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Listen - it doesn't matter whether you or I know something to be true or not. It still needs a reliable source. I don't see what's difficult to understand about that. Also I would strongly advise dropping the personal attacks about being a "bot", as that will see you getting reported to ANI. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:58, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Dear, cut the victimization out please. It was a legitimate question concerning wether you are a bot or a real person paid to keep the sites clean, which, as I also stated if you read it thoroughly, is appreciated. Coming back to my point, you still do not answer my question. Are airline websites, airport websites and flightradars considered reliable sources? It's a simple yes or no. So the question now is, will you do dialogue or keep threatening me? ~2026-18619-27 (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

If you keep up personal attacks, you will go to ANI. It’s as simple as that.

Flight trackers, no - not for routes, as was discussed at WP:RSN a few months ago - it’s WP:SYNTH to use flight trackers to verify the regular operation of routes. Airport and airline websites - reliable yes, but at the moment there’s consensus that they shouldn’t be used in airport destination lists. An RfC to overturn that has been held, but it hasn’t been closed yet so isn’t in effect yet. The best sources at the moment are news sites or magazines. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:06, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

They’ve been renumbered. So don’t revert it. ~2026-32935-0 (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

When you finally provide a reliable source it'll remain on the page. Two messages have now been left on your talk page regarding this. Sources are not optional. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 06:32, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

But please, stop stalking my edits, like the Eurovision Class 350 livery being removed. Thanks. ~2026-32935-0 (talk) 06:41, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Those pages are on my watchlist, I'm not stalking your edits specifically. But again - you're not providing reliable sources for your edits. For the fourth time now, they're not optional. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 06:45, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Do I really need a useful source for the re-numbering of 357213/357217 to 357313/357317 when it really happened? ~2026-32935-0 (talk) 07:26, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, we really need a reliable source on Wikipedia…….. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 07:36, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't want to amend your comment, but the thread should be about Dokateoo, not Diogo sfreitas. FDW777 (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Are you actually kidding me... well crap Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:07, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I see what's happened - I got two users mixed up. I've removed the report and apologised to Dokateoo. I'll also revert my comment on AN3 and the talk page. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:11, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1216#h-User mass restoring unsourced and content sourced to unreliable sources, and_lea-20260226090600 does seem to be about Dokateoo though, and the rest of your current ANI report appears to be about Dokateoo. I thought you'd just messed up putting the wrong name on the report? FDW777 (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but if you look at the diffs I gave they are for Diogo sfreitas. The latter had been adding unsourced content disruptively this morning, and knowing their history I had prepared an ANI report ready for when they returned as they often do... yet when Dokateoo turned up this afternoon, I thought it was Diogo sfreitas and made some edits to the prepared report and posted it. So a rather large blunder on my part!! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:20, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

dude just because youtube isn't a reliable source that does not mean it's true ~2026-21851-62 (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability not truth - this is an encyclopaedia not a newspaper. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 22:32, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi! This is regarding the edit in Chennai International Airport. While both Navi Mumbai and Shivaji airports are part of the larger Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR), there has been quiet a lot of to and fro regarding how they are named across airport articles. Initially, it was separated as Navi Mumbai and Mumbai, later it was changed to Mumbai-Navi and Mumba-Shivaji respectively based on the MMR logic, which has now been reverted to the old state by User:Reywas92 across articles, citing "Mumbai is unambiguously different from Navi Mumbai, they are different cities". For uniformity, I have restored the older version. While I am aware, the second parlance is used when a city has multiple airports, it can be argued that both Mumbai and Navi Mumbai are "different cities" and/or both belong to the same metropolitan region. Do let me know your comments on this, and it needs a larger discussion if need be. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 08:14, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I think it definitely needs a larger discussion - even the article for Mumbai Shivaj lists it as one of two airports serving Mumbai, the other being Navi. I would suggest we go to the WikiProject and discuss it there, leaving notes on the relevant article talk pages and user talk pages. Is there any chance you would be able to open the discussion? After this I'll be offline until this evening due to volunteering commitments :) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 08:23, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I have started the discussion. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 08:36, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Back off a wikiholiday doing real life stuff (it gets in the way you know). Hope you're doing well. Keep an eye on Houtyuhn (talk · contribs) who is fond of WP:SPS / WP:UGC references. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Glad to see you back - you've been missed for sure :) I'll try and keep an eye… busy pulling levers for trains this weekend though Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:40, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Ooh fun! 10mmsocket (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

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: Throwing the baby out with the bathwater

At Air transports of heads of state and government#Colombia you reverted my (very) recent edit with undue haste. In doing so you threw away two good citations, along with the one bad example that you leapt upon. This is not the first time you have reverted my edits in this manner, and I suspect other editors have suffered in the same way. I have let it pass before, but enough is enough!

Would you kindly undo your reversion, then tag the one poor citation with {{better source needed}}, and leave the rest to me. Come back in 7 days if you like, and delete it if it is still there. I do appreciate your input regarding the second citation that was only there to illustrate and support the primary citation. FYI I am already looking to find better sources in order to render your tag redundant. Thanks

WendlingCrusader (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

No, I will not restore a bad citation to an article. The content is still in the page history, so you are able to restore the good part of your edit and the part with the dodgy cite, replacing the cite. But out of principle, no I will not restore WP:UGC. Indeed, if you have a replacement cite you can simply revert it yourself and replace the cite in the same edit or a follow-up edit. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:50, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

By the way - {{bsn}} is for sources which are reliable, but it would be preferable to replace them with something even better. For example, if someone used a social media post from an official account, that is a reliable source - but ideally someone would come along and replace it with an even better source at a later date. BSN is not for sources which are inherently not reliable sources, as content cited to unreliable sources, quite simply, shouldn't be there in the first place. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:56, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

airhistory.net is user-generated content like jetphotos.com airplane-pictures.net planepictures.net - none of them should be used as sources, so I'm 100% supportive of Danners430 removing such references. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:26, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

@Danners430 Ok, so you will not restore a bad citation to an article, but you will stick by the fact you deleted two good citations? The suggestion that I should take responsibility and correct your mistake is not appreciated. If you are going to use WP:TWINKLE, then you must take full responsibility for your actions. Did you make a reasonable attempt to improve the change? Was the edit unreasonably difficult to fix? You have just assured me that it would be "simple" to put it right. That trout is beginning to smell a bit off.

@10mmsocket Great to have a second opinion; but are you really happy that two good citations were sacrificed? A more judicious edit would have taken out the single faulty citation. Your input suggests you somehow believe I am fighting to retain the airhistory.net citation. That is not the issue here.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

RE: your revert of my edit. Please see the quoted paragraphs 132, 134 and 157! Mjroots (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I've already self-rv'ed - I was in the process of reading the report anyway, and just hadn't got that far yet Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:03, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Plip!

Mjroots (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

ouch! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:08, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Regarding your revert here - the new name actually is sourced at the bottom of the lede. The revert's still correct though as I believe at the start of the lede the name probably should be the "old" one due to WP:COMMONNAME and the fact that the airport name might need time to be "officially" recognized as changed like with the Palm Beach airport name change. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:06, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Ah that makes sense - but should still be a move request instead of making the lede different to the title :) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:08, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

That too, which also puts it in the "wait a while to see if the new name becomes the commonname" file! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:15, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Just FYI, I found another. 10mmsocket (talk) 10:44, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:29, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Ah. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:43, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorry I should have linked to the SPI which you had previously contributed to. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:49, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

All good - I was eating lunch when I replied on my phone, now I'm at my computer I can see what you're on about! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:12, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Dokateoo (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Well he did say "You won't get very far" and you didn't. I'm fully behind what Danners430 did and see the outcome of this ANI as a vindication. Long may we protect Wikipedia from incorrect content. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi there! Why are you removing the changes that I—as an avgeek—have confirmed are definitely going to happen? The OGG flight is confirmed to operate year-round; if you check the flight schedules for Salt Lake Airport, you'll see for yourself. Here are two links: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DPmb0GjkeU6/ and https://slcairport.com/airlines-flights/flight-schedule/. The flight to Toronto departed in October, but it is scheduled to return on May 7th. It operates year-round—the only break is a two-week pause between December 19th and January 3rd. It continues beyond that period as well; you can confirm this by checking the schedules published by the airport or on the Delta website. Thank you very much. I hope you are able to confirm this information. ~2026-24046-45 (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

There's a very, very simple answer - did you provide a reliable source in your edit? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 06:08, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what sources you rely on to claim that *you alone* have the right to edit content regarding the airport. I sent you links where the details are explicitly laid out, and I addressed you courteously. You can verify this with either Delta or Cirium. You seem to act as though you are the only person authorized to edit anything about the airport; therefore, you should inform yourself better and refrain from being so discourteous. Thank you. ~2026-24046-45 (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

See WP:ONUS. If you add stuff, then it is up to you to add the support references (WP:V - and those references need to be added in the article, not in edit summaries and not in talk page comments. That's not being discourteous it's doing Wikipedia as it should be done. 10mmsocket (talk) 02:09, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

It is rather discourteous not to treat someone—who is actively contributing to a page and to the airport they frequent daily—with the utmost courtesy, or to offer guidance on how to improve their edits. But rest assured: the flights to Toronto and Maui remain available to be flown, whether or not they are listed among Wikipedia's destinations. Have a good night! ;) ~2026-24046-45 (talk) 04:54, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Danners430! Greetings! I saw that you recently did a cleanup of Chennai International Airport. I can understand the script assisted fixes of citations, which has been mentioned in the edit summary, the removal of unreliable sources and addition of citation tags. However, I am not sure why you removed a large swathe of destinations list from IndiGo as there was common sources quoted against the airline due to the relatively large number of destinations and also Bluedart (Chennai is the main hub of Bluedart!). I have added the relevant destinations back with the sources. Do let me know if you had a rationale behind the same or if it was inadvertent. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 06:08, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

It's reasonably simple - when the majority of routes have route specific sources attached, having a bunch of routes with no source at all makes them appear like they have no source at all, and it's unclear whether if at all a source does apply. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 06:10, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

As for Blue Dart - perhaps you can explain where in the source you provided it states that they fly between Chennai and those locations listed? Because all I can see is a waybill finder… Danners430 _{tweaks made} 06:13, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I hope the IndiGo issue is resolved for now as I have updated the source, and populated it for all the destinations. As for Bluedart, there are three different sources, can you be more specific as to which one you are referring to, so that the concern can be addressed. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

This one - Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:41, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

The source clearly states that "air freight service...flights operated by Blue Dart Aviation between the airports of x,y,z, Chennai,..." Magentic Manifestations (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

OK - so it's Chennai to all of those, or is it a circular tour? Or is it a hub and spoke? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 05:21, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Hey, Hope You're Doing Well. I was wondering whether having Flight Schedules listed by the Airlines' Website be reliable for the Articles? Since you've left them as they are in some pages, while you've removed them in the page for Kolkata Airport. Would be great if you could clarify. Thank You. AlphaBravo178 (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Until recently, no - but since the closure of a recent RfC, then yes - just make sure that a source like that has an access date so we know when it was last checked. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:02, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Appreciate it, Thank You. AlphaBravo178 (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

@AlphaBravo178 in your recent edit you used an unreliable source however, that being Aeroroutes - per WP:AEROROUTES it’s a self-published source, not reliable Danners430 _{tweaks made} 06:13, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, for IndiGo - why did you restore the pointless cite against the carrier itself when you added sources to all the routes? Adding a cite to that column only serves to clutter up the table, which is why I remove them (or move if need be) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 06:14, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank You for Pointing them out, to make it a little easier, I copied the old table for each carrier and replaced the source. I replaced most of the Aeroroutes Sources but I guess a few have been left out. I will correct them. Same goes for the reference against the carrier. AlphaBravo178 (talk) 11:16, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@Danners430 They've been Updated. Have a Nice Day! AlphaBravo178 (talk) 11:19, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think I have much relation in general, but I'll admit my revert from a few days ago was probably not appropriate. I seem to have done it based on what others have said and I assumed that a revert would be the best course of action. I think it is best that you exclude me from the conversation here, but thanks for letting me know about a mistake I may have made a few days ago based on my poor judgement. Beta Beta Beta (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

No worries at all - I simply pinged everyone that made a revert regardless of what "side" they were on - except one of the IPs that was blocked :) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:16, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Got it, have a great day. Beta Beta Beta (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

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

• A URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters contains an invalid URL. Please edit the article to add the valid URL. (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) 13:10, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Kavala International Airport. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi instead of just keeping undoing each others changes I figure it would be more productive to work together to get accurate, up-to-date information here, and of course from a reliable source, for the MSP-OGG start date. Delta moved up the start date to November 9th - this shows on the schedule on their official website, however you can't link to it as it breaks when you try to reach it so I linked to google flights which pulls their data directly from Delta. I'm new to editing so if you have a suggested approach given this situation I'd value your input - I would like the information to be accurate instead of referencing outdated inaccurate information that may be from a great source but that doesn't matter much if its wrong.

Thank you! Bison333 (talk) 03:49, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Google flights also doesn't work as a source - booking engines as a whole don't work because you can't link directly to the results. If you look at the majority of sources used, most of them are news articles - that's the ideal kind of source to use. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 07:23, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I think google flights does work as you can get links for specific searches see: https://www.google.com/travel/flights/s/MWrBC1CmsqqgEWjD7

Maybe could we add both sources the original article and then google flights to source the updated start date? Bison333 (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

It’s already been discussed by various folk and booking engines are WP:SYNTH Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:45, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

So how do we address this? because the information on the page is currently verifiably inaccurate Bison333 (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

We find a reliable source such as a news article. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:49, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep an eye. Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

First paragraph might explain things. 10mmsocket (talk) 05:47, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:12, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

That's better… when it gets to that stage often the best course of action is simply stepping back and sending it to RPP. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:13, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Also Salt Lake City International Airport. Thx. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:15, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh joys - I haven’t even got that far in my watchlist yet to have seen that! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 06:17, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

username is a bit of a giveaway :) 10mmsocket (talk) 06:20, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

A bit of WP:OWN going on by SPA at List of Airbus A220 orders and deliveries. Updating content without updating references. You know the drill.... 10mmsocket (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

The same one I've seen you leave messages on their talk page for a little while now? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:31, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Nope, different guy… would be worth remembering to leave a note on their talk page instead of just edit warring (even though you're completely correct here) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:36, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that you're very familiar with Italian commercial aviation.

Your corrections from May 2nd seem unsubstantiated.

I'll take the liberty of updating the text again.

Perhaps next time you'll contact me before taking any action... Settignano (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

1. People don’t need to be “familiar” with a topic to edit it.

2. I don’t have to contact you about edits I make.

You do not own articles or topic areas, and your paragraph above flies very close to that policy.

Now perhaps you could take the liberty of actually providing diffs or links to what you’re on about? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:02, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I am reviewing the entire group of defunct Italian airlines and making corrections and additions. Settignano (talk) 09:13, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

...which is good, but do understand WP:OWN - you have to play nicely with other editors. Another minor style thing is MOS:SECTIONORDER - "See also" goes before references and "Further reading" goes after references and before "External links" 10mmsocket (talk) 09:46, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

It would be really good if you could go fix your edits so we don't have to. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:54, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

That doesn't exactly help - you're complaining about "a correction from May 2nd"... I make tens, sometimes hundreds, of edits a day... what are you talking about? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:57, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your continuous cooperation. I don't care much about On Air and FlyOnAir. However, I will continue to correct the pages of defunct Italian airlines because there are still many errors... Settignano (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

As long as you stop adding content without reliable sources, no issues. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:33, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

On May 7th, I wrote a page about Columbia, a small Italian charter airline.

I can't find it anymore, even though it appears in the list of my contributions. Settignano (talk) 09:12, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

It's here - ] - you overwrote a disambiguation page instead of creating a draft article, so it was reverted. I have created the draft based on your edit at Draft:Columbia (airline). 10mmsocket (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Good, thanks.

Would you be so kind as to include it on the page of defunct Italian airlines with an appropriate link? Settignano (talk) 10:36, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Not when it's a draft. Draft articles are so called for a reason. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:38, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

So like, that forum source I put on NGIA's page here, HOP (historyofpia.com), the name of that forum, is the most reliable source to PAK aviation. If you could, please revert that revertion of removing the source, however I acknowledge if you reject to revert the edit. AnonymousUserInKaty (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

It's a forum. Forums are by their very nature user generated content, not reliable sources. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 05:26, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I have ended with a first review of Italian defunct airlines page. Now I will go with three projects with this schedule:

1 - adding some important/noticeable airlines which are missing (i.e. Aeralpi, Teseo)

2 - fully review the text of important airlines (i.e. Alisarda/Meridiana and further evolutions up to the collapse)

3 - Alitalia and related subsidiaries from the beginning (1947)

I wish you to know this before of any interaction or even intrusion.

Cheers. Settignano (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned when you say "I wish you to know this before of any interaction or even intrusion" - what do you intent to mean with this? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:14, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

This is my work schedule.

Help me by blocking any interference and/or intrusions as I work. ~2026-29376-38 (talk) 10:49, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Again, who are you? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:51, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I noticed that you removed a citation link on the Moorgate station article, way back on 13 July 2025, because of WP:SPS regarding the use of of the axonometric diagram. I've found another source for what I think is possibly the same diagram: a response to an FOI request made to TfL. So I've added a citation to this FOI request, which I think makes it OK to include. Do let me know if this is a problem. DrFrench (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

That's fine what you've done - however I've separated to two citations which you put into a single ref tag Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:29, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Cool, I'm happy with that. To be honest, I wasn't really sure how to cite two documents that related to the same thing. Thanks for fixing it. 15:35, 17 May 2026 (UTC) DrFrench (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah generally two separate ref tags are better - it means you can reuse one or either of them in another part of the article Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:36, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I see that Aligiulia page in the list of defunct Italian airlines is not active while I remember to have integrated it. Where can I find it? Settignano (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I genuinely have no idea what you mean - Aligiulia is in the list, and the page is a redirect back to the same page Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:02, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

@Settignano Three times now you've come to this talk page to ask a question or make a statement. Three times I've replied with a request for clarification, and three times you've ignored it. If you're going to leave a message here, kindly respond when I ask you a follow up question and don't just vanish. It's very rude. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:34, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but apparently there are still things I don't understand and functions I don't know how to use properly.

Follow me.

I open the page for defunct Italian airlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defunct_airlines_of_Italy

If I click on

- Air Besit

- Aligiulia

- Altair

- Federico II

the page doesn't open. Why? Can you help me?

More: if you click Columbia you are shown a variety of links, none of them related to the airline which is not even mentioned... Settignano (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Because the first three are redirects back to the list page (circular redirects) - the article doesn't exist as a standalone article. The last is a disambiguation page. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:16, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, but it doesn't help me much.

Can you convert them as standalone articles?

How can I solve the disambiguation page problem and identify the airline? ~2026-29376-38 (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Who are you? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:48, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

The same Italian in love with civil/commercial aviation.... Settignano (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

There are many airlines which don't meet WP:GNG - not everything needs or, apologies, deserves an article… it has to be shown the topic is notable first. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:54, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I was just complaining about the fact that there are no usable images on Wikimedia. Settignano (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

So? It's not a problem. TBB (talk) 09:17, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you reverted a lot of EurovisionNim sock edits. Please take a bit more care when doing so, as many of these edits were actually improvements. As an example, this revert restored a lot of outdated content to the article. I will note I have engaged in WP:BANREVERT before, it's just when a case is more complex, it should be ensured you're not actually making the article worse. In cases more straightforward such as a WMF-banned user, then there doesn't have to be as much of a level of scrutiny. Cutlass^Ciera 16:14, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I mean, even as WP:BANREVERT says - when it’s ambiguous, it’s fine to rv. Certainly the edit I looked at I didn’t immediately see anything that would mark it as a helpful edit. But happy to keep a closer eye.

I just have a fair bit of enthusiasm when it comes to wanksocks sockpuppets… I despise them with a passion! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:17, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

That attitude toward reverting is rather problematic, to say the least.

If you looked closely, the sock removed vastly outdated information about SsangYong Stavics 'currently' being trialed as "maxi cabs." This was a fair removal and did not need to be restored.

The Scion xA edit, while it did add the editor's own photograph, was an improvement. The old rear view image was of very poor quality and the car was partially blocked by a tree. There was no need for this to be reverted.

As I said before, please LOOK at what you are reverting in more complicated cases like these. It's not a competition to mass-revert every edit by a sock. Cutlass^Ciera 16:21, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

As I said, happy to keep a closer eye - I simply despise sockpuppets. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:39, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Following your invitation to join yet another discussion involving this airport name, I drafted a tediously long response - but then stopped myself short on the basis I had drifted way off-topic. Personally I am less involved in destination lists, which seems to be something of a battleground I am happy to avoid. Consequently I may have completely missed the original question. Please give me some quality feedback before I waste everybody's time. Mainly, is any of the following of any value? I think I already know the answer!

Potential response at - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#Short_form_of_Navi_Mumbai_International_Airport

Historically speaking and long before Wikipedia, there was a degree of consistency, but only amongst those countries that named airports after their location, as opposed to the increasingly common trend for naming them after local celebrities. I will try and keep my list of examples short;

• UK - Manchester (Ringway), Liverpool (Speke), Bristol (Lulsgate)
• Europe & beyond - Paris (Orly), Paris (Le Bourget), Milan (Bergamo), Hamburg (Fuhlsbüttel), Helsinki (Vantaa), Moscow (Domodedovo), Tunis (Carthage)

Whilst some of these are relatively obscure places that barely exist these days (e.g. Ringway, population 103), others are sizeable towns or cities, with substantial populations, much like Navi Mumbai. Joint top of the list are Shanghai (Pudong) and Shanghai (Hongqiao), one a vast suburb with a population of 5.6 million, the other a small town of little consequence.

So, is there a common theme? To some extent this is answered by WP:COMMONNAME, but it's not always the solution. The criteria I suggest are;

1. Where the airport is universally well-known by a simple name, such as Heathrow, Gatwick, LAX,
2. Where the celebrity name is universally known, and associated with a particular place, such as JFK, CDG (maybe), O' Hare (possibly), La Guardia (ditto)
3. Where the airport is clearly the only major airport for a location, and requires no further qualification e.g. Manchester, Munich, Geneva
4. Everything else should reference the major city that it serves.

That will create problems for Brussels South, which one editor insists serves Charleroi, not Brussels, and a host of currently mis-named Russian airports including three of the four serving Moscow (Sheremetyevo, Vnukovo, and Zhukovsky), plus Pulkovo Airport which serves St Petersburg (how many readers would know that?).

Footnote; it is possible I have just seen the light, and I will post a much shorter (and hopefully more appropriate) response at the relevant Wikiproject page. Once you have read that, all the above will probably become redundant, except it may have some value in a totally different discussion at some future date, probably more aligned to WP:COMMONNAME, so I would still value any feedback.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, you caught me just tucking into a plate of spag bol!

I think that's pretty decent - it's a larger discussion really than just one or two names… it's another example of multiple minor disputes painting a picture that requires a bigger discussion, so I think that's very useful. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:38, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I recently visited the Perth Airport wikipedia page and found the airlines and destinations section to be missing many destinations that were previously listed, having gone through the edit history I saw it was from your edit. Perhaps you could explain to me why you thought it was a good idea to remove every Virgin Australia and Qantas domestic destination from the list as well as a number of other flights. At some point I will have to manually add these back, so I would be pleased to hear an explanation beforehand, thank you. SmileSmite83 (talk) 10:28, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Quite simple - they were all wholly unsourced. It's not just the Perth airport article that has this problem - almost every single airport article at one point had this problem. I've been slowly going through them one at a time, removing the unsourced content (that should never have been added) and simultaneously bringing it up to standard in other ways, such as removing unreliable sources, non-notable incidents, and tagging paragraphs without sources. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:32, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

So, simply instead of finding a source for these routes, most of them are common domestic routes that fly out every day, you just decided to remove all of them? Did you not consider that a lot of the routes have never changed since the article was first created. As such you wont find a source that will mention the flight launching on a certain date, why is this only an issue now after 20 years of these airport articles existing and why you are more interested in destroying these articles rather than just adding the appropriate sources and thus removing any flights do not exist? SmileSmite83 (talk) 10:44, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

It's always been an issue - WP:V has been policy for decades. But it's clear that many editors simply didn't bother applying it. The problem got so bad in recent years that some editors, including administrators, were calling for these lists to be removed altogether at venues such as WP:ANI and WP:VPP. There was an RfC on the matter which came back as no consensus, hence why they aren't being removed wholesale - but the requirement to source content remains, as has always been the case. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:48, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

It's worth remembering that what was removed is, and always will be, preserved in the page history - so as and when sources are found (if a route exists, there will be a reliable source for it somewhere - I've yet to find a single route I couldn't find a source for, even for the most obscure airline) they can easily be restored - just of course not until said sources are found. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:49, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok, thats great but it still doesn’t answer my question about why you have not added the appropriate sources. If you are supposedly bringing the article up to the standard I thought that would also include displaying the most up to date and accurate information. Omitting the three most flown routes from the destinations table amongst many others instead of just finding a source for it, so the article can remain accurate whilst being sourced appropriately. I would appreciate an answer to this question since I or someone else will be manually adding back all the destinations that you removed. SmileSmite83 (talk) 10:55, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Honestly there's a very simple answer - the amount of stuff that is unsourced in these articles (again, this isn't just Perth - indeed Perth was one of the lesser articles in terms of the scale of the problem) is completely insane, and as of right now it appears I'm the only editor who is trying to tackle the problem. I simply don't have the hours in the day to find sources for each of the routes on every airport article. Instead there are dedicated editors who generally edit the airport articles in their interest area - like yourself with Perth.

However as has been evidenced up until now, leaving the content there without a source isn't an impetus for people to do anything about it. I've tried leaving talk page notices, tried adding citation needed banners, even tried adding individual citation needed tags to each unsourced route - none have worked, and the content just continues sitting there without a source.

Put simply - unsourced content has no place on Wikipedia. It never has. In fact, WP:V even explicitly says that unsourced content may be removed at any time without explanation for this very reason. The only way I've found to "galvanise" editors to actually go out and find sources is simply by removing the content that is unsourced.

Believe me - I wish I had time to source everything instead of just removing it… but I'm only one person, so I don't. If and when I do see sources, I do add them. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:04, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok, well I can understand that. I can see that you’ve been making edits of other airports I saw that you took many destinations of off Lisbon Airport, people will likely eventually add them back but your changes have probably been quite unexpected since from memory no one has ever removed so much content from the destinations section for the reason you provided, although I can understand why you have done that I’m not questioning that. I don’t really tend to edit the page, and adding back everything isn’t really something I have the time or desire to do. I haven’t actually made a wikipedia edit in over a year I just thought to look into it after seeing so much missing. Nonetheless I appreciate that you have responded to my talk messages, thank you. SmileSmite83 (talk) 11:12, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Also it's worth noting that restoring unsourced content would see the edit being reverted per WP:BURDEN. Please don't - I have no desire to get into an edit war. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:04, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

If I add back the removed destinations I will make sure they are sourced. SmileSmite83 (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

By all means please do - literally the whole point of this exercise is to improve the sourcing… so my ideal endgame would be to see them all added back with reliable sources Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:14, 20 May 2026 (UTC)