User talk:Danners430: Difference between revisions

Line 9: Line 9:

}}

== Approved Aviation Sources ==

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 [https://www.casa.gov.au/search-centre/aircraft-register 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 [[User:Jay330|Jay330]] ([[User talk: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! [[User talk:Danners430|Danners430]] [[Special:Contributions/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 It could cause articles to be come outdated very quickly. A subsequent observation I’ve made is I think this is why most pages don’t have references (or are very outdated) for fleets [[User:Jay330|Jay330]] ([[User talk:Jay330|talk]]) 03:57, 8 November 2025 (UTC)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. [[User talk:Danners430|Danners430]] [[Special:Contributions/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).[https://www.casa.gov.au/search-centre/aircraft-register?reg=&search_api_fulltext=%22+SUNSTATE+AIRLINES+%28QLD%29+PTY.+LIMITED%22&field_tx_aircraft_manufacturer=&dt_first_registered%5Bmin%5D=&dt_first_registered%5Bmax%5D=&field_tx_aircraft_model=DHC-8-402] Would this then fix that issue as your not specifically referencing one aircraft but this time the entire fleet type? [[User:Jay330|Jay330]] ([[User talk:Jay330|talk]]) 02:03, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

:::::Where does CASA get its data from? Just not familiar with that site 🙂 [[User talk:Danners430|Danners430]] [[Special:Contributions/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 [[User:Jay330|Jay330]] ([[User talk:Jay330|talk]]) 08:08, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Ah makes sense – yeah to me that sounds like it would be reasonable [[User talk:Danners430|Danners430]] [[Special:Contributions/Danners430|tweaks made]] 08:10, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

== [[Train simulator]] ==

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.

My core principles

For goodness sake, use a summary!

<sum>:1

This user believes that every edit should have a summary.

COI Declarations

Other

Humour

Has this user made a silly mistake? Click on the trout to notify him!

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

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

Shakes head in despair… 10mmsocket (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Dear user, the flights for Varesh Airlines to Dushanbe have been operating since February of 2022 according to numerous sources ^[1]. This flight was listed on the Wikipedia page for the airport for many years, but some disruptive users removed it. All I did was return accurate information to the page. If anything, users should provide a source against this flight. Otherwise, this should remain listed on the page. If you try to undo edits again without a reasonable excuse, I may have to report to Wikipedia admin as disruptive editing. Snape2324 (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go right ahead. Per WP:V, the user adding content to an article must provide a reliable source, which you have not done. And again per that same policy, unsourced content may be removed from an article at any time, which is what I did. If you have a reliable source, feel free to re-add – but until then, kindly stop adding unsourced content. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:01, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There you go – this is called providing a source, something which you didn’t do in your last two edits. And for information – if content is unsourced, users do not require a source to remove it, since it was unsourced in the first place. I suggest you have a read of Wikipedia policies before threatening users with a “report to admin”. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:05, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn’t be used to cite in articles. However, there’s no rule that says it can’t be used in edit summaries. RPC7778 (talk) 10:48, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not a reliable source – it’s as simple as that. Nobody is banning you from putting links in your edit summaries, however if you remove valid and well-sourced content, then a reliable source must be provided that overrides the sources you’re removing. Right now, there are two routes in that route table which have valid sources – where is the reliable source that says the routes have ended? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:50, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re correct that it shouldn’t be cited in the article itself, but edit summaries aren’t bound by reliable sourcing requirements. They’re simply for context. The link was included to explain the rationale for the edit, not to serve as a source in the article. RPC7778 (talk) 10:55, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re not even reading what I’m saying. You’re removing valid and well-sourced content, so a reliable source is needed to explain why it’s being removed. And Aeroroutes is not a reliable source. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:57, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, content in the article should be sourced. A source is not needed to prove a negative of content not in the article. Anyone can remove sourced content at any time if that content is no longer relevant. You’re readding inaccurate or outdated information. Reywas92^Talk 15:24, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK – so how do we verify that the sourced content is no longer relevant? Otherwise I could go into the article for London Heathrow and remove the routes to New York and claim they are no longer relevant. If you are making changes to sourced information, we need to be able to verify that what’s being added is in fact accurate – and an unreliable source is not the way to do this. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:27, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The airline timetable? Google Flights or anywhere else? The primary source mentioned by Aeroroutes? Just because SPSes shouldn’t be used within an article does NOT mean they cannot be examined, considered, or used to find other sources. “we need to be able to verify that what’s being added” -> something is not being added here. Unclear why you’re making an irrelevant claim about making false assertions, but if I saw that change I’d investigate before reflexively reverting and potentially readding incorrect content. Reywas92^Talk 15:46, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s up to the person making a change to source that claim. If I removed routes from the Heathrow route table, the expectation would be that I provide a RELIABLE source in the edit summary to explain why I am doing this. Aeroroutes is not a reliable source – I don’t quite understand what the confusion is here?

There are some of RPC’s edits which I didn’t revert specifically because the existing source wasn’t reliable (or non-existent), so it doesn’t really matter what’s provided to explain the removal – but when you’re removing valid and current sources, we need to evidence that the sources are no longer valid and current – and an unreliable source can’t do this. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:52, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s worth adding, this is precisely the reason why I personally am of the opinion these route tables should be removed (obviously the correct processes must be followed, it’s not my decision, but it’s my opinion) – because it’s impossible to verify that a route is currently operating as we only have secondary sources for the start and occasionally end of a route. Primary sourcing does help to an extent, but often airlines can unlist a route for reasons other than cancellation… but that’s a matter for the RfC, not for here – my opinion stands though 🙂 Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:57, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that I just had the same discussion with the same people without seeing this. Hmmmm….

Anyway, can you keep an eye on Diesel locomotive as I don’t want to go 3RR and the editor involved is failing/refusing to respond. Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Already looking at it – their recent edits seem innocent enough. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:31, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did actually go 3RR so self-reverted leaving the unsourced information there. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given we’re discussing it here, probably best to take them to ANI at this point, as it could well be seen that we’re tag-teaming them if I start reverting after being notified by yourself. Much as I want to, given it’s blatantly unsourced, I think other avenues need using. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I undid your edits on the Imam Khomeini International Airport airline and destinations table, because all of those routes are operated at the airport and once had a source that was eventually removed over time. It is good to have many sources on an airport page. However, to have a source for every single flight is not the standard and also not very practical as there are some flights that don’t need sources, especially ones that have been operating for decades. I agree that airlines and destinations tables may not be the most informative and accurate aspects of Wikipedia pages, however we cannot just get rid of an entire page, just because every single flight doesn’t have a source. I want to ask you to please not undo my edits and only mark the flights you think need citations. I will do my best to provide citations for those flights, but please do not remove the table entirely. Snape2324 (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but you’re incorrect here. Content on Wikipedia must be sourced – if a route is in the route table, then it must have a reliable source. Feel free to add routes back as you find sources, but you cannot add unsourced content to articles. That’s a fundamental Wikipedia policy – WP:Verifiability. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 22:08, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the policy is that content must be verifiable. This content is not unverifiable. Or do you have evidence it’s incorrect? There are massive swaths of content across the project that does not have a source, but that does not mean it must be removed in bulk on sight. Reywas92^Talk 04:32, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There’s massive swaths of content across the project that does not have a source – and right there is the problem, it should have a source but doesn’t. So what do we do – leave it sitting there and do nothing? Nothing will change. But it does need to change. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 05:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So add them! You are NOT improving Wikipedia! Or add tags! You have still not identified actual issues with unverifiable information. Reywas92^Talk 15:21, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I add sources if/when I know of them. In many cases I don’t know of sources however. If you look at what’s happened in the time since I originally removed those routes, the majority have been re-added with sources. So kindly tell me how this is making Wikipedia worse?

We started with an incredibly poorly sourced routes table, now we have a fully sourced table, with work being done to restore the rest with reliable sources. This is how every airport route table should be, but it isn’t – which is why work needs to be done. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply