User talk:Snape2324

As I mentioned once before before you blanked your talk page, Aeroroutes is not a reliable source per the discussion at WP:AEROROUTES. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 08:31, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

So Aeroroutes, a widely used source that is updated on a daily basis based on direct information from airlines is not reliable, but flightconnections.com is reliable? This seems blasphemous. I mean I don't understand why you are trying to dictate every single edit that happens on this page or any other airport page. If you are striving for accuracy and reliability, then you should maybe focus on so many other airport pages that also use Aeroroutes. However, I have not seen you edit those pages, because your edits will be contested. As I previously told you, it is impractical what you did with the mass removal of content from this page. The aviation industry in Iran is massively underreported and there are many flights that operate on a daily basis that are not reported in any independent news outlets. That does not mean that those flights are not valid to be reported on Wikipedia. If you just check the flight schedule on the official website for this airport, you will come to the same conclusion. As far as I know, flightconnections.com is also a very unreliable source, which is why I did not use it to add content to this page. Again, I first apologized about my unsourced edits, but now you are also removing my sourced edits. As I previously said, you are attempting to police every edit that I do on any airport page, which is quite frustrating and unfair. Snape2324 (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Let's address these points one by one:

1. FlightConnections is already at the WP:RSN noticeboard specifically because it's believed to be unreliable, and that's where the consensus seems to be heading. However, it hasn't been discussed before, hence why it's still there. Aeroroutes has already been discussed at that venue, twice in fact, and both times it was agreed that it's WP:SPS and therefore does not constitute a reliable source. The first of the two discussions is archived at WP:AEROROUTES.
2. Aeroroutes is indeed still used on many pages - but perhaps that's got a little something to do with the fact that the decision that it's unreliable was only made about 1-2 months ago (I lose track of time), and it was at that time used on over 1,800 pages - I would love to know how you expect us to strip all of those sources out in that time. If it's still in an article, it's specifically because we haven't yet removed it. Both myself and @10mmsocket are actively removing that source from pages when we have time, but it will likely take months to do.
3. If there are no reliable sources for content, then I'm sorry but it's as simple as it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I completely understand that certain areas of the world are underreported on - however, those are Wikipedia policies, and there aren't rules for some and other rules for others. The policies in question here are WP:V and WP:RS.

If you feel Aeroroutes should be reinstated as a source, then you are within your rights to begin a further discussion at WP:RSN regarding it; similarly, if you have an opinion on FlightConnections, then there's already a discussion open at that noticeboard, so again feel free to join that discussion. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:22, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I have removed a number of aeroroutes references as the community has concluded more than once that they are unreliable. Unfortunately as we are a) all volunteers and b) there are 1,900 article with aeroroutes references it's going to take a while to clean them up. But we will do that (eventually) as we have with many other bad sources, e.g. simpleflying.com and planespotters.net 10mmsocket (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the clarification. Snape2324 (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Since the previous discussion, because of my poor judgement at grouping together unrelated sources, was a mess and was archived with no outcome, I've started a fresh, targeted, discussion about FR24. Pinging you because you were in the old discussion :-) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:44, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Snape2324 (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)