User talk:Danners430: Difference between revisions

Line 67: Line 67:

Regarding the message that you sent [[User talk:Emayeah#c-Danners430-20260123151800-January 2026|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? [[User:Emayeah|Emayeah]] ([[User talk: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. [[User talk:Danners430|Danners430]] [[Special:Contributions/Danners430|tweaks made]] 15:24, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

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 an edit 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!

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

that’s just stupid Brian Hawthorn (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

~2026-21637 has given you a c ookie! 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The discussions at RSN have really driven that home for me. When people are flocking in to put down exyuaviation.com, aeroroutes.com, Flightradar24.com etc. as useable sources, with truly the flimsiest justifications, we just very clearly have a situation where our PAGs are just getting ignored. Arguments based on PAGs stand no chance of success with the kind of motivated reasoning being deployed. I think you’ve seen that in the discussion about airport destination table sourcing as well.

In any other field everyone would just be very clear that these are blog/aggregators. Not here though.

At some point they’re going to overstep the mark and wind up at ARBCOM but until then it’s better just to stay out of it. FOARP (talk) 09:23, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Put it this way – I’m not going to abandon an entire section of the encyclopaedia to fall into disrepair. Even if all I do is recent changes patrol unsourced content, which is the biggest problem by far, at least some of the nonsense is being kept off the site. Hopefully the use of primary sources for routes will help, because we can simply source each airline to their own route map. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:32, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Danners430, if you tear down, you should also build. You are quick to mass remove airline destinations from destination tables due to insufficient/unreliable sourcing, but you say you have “many, many other things happening in life, like a full time job and family commitments” (a direct quote from you). You are doing far more harm than good, and now someone reading the Munich Airport article will think that Lufthansa only serves a dozen destinations from one of its largest hubs. So instead of mass removing, take the time to find a reliable source for the routes which we all know exist, and just need to be sourced. GSHAPIROY (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn’t aware that random other editors were able to tell me how to spend my time on Wikipedia.

I’m a recent changes patroller primarily – I keep an eye on pages on my watchlist to watch for vandalism and unconstructive edits. Where I see a problem, I deal with that problem – and these lists are one of them. I have no intention of changing how I edit Wikipedia because a small number of airport fanboys are annoyed that they’re being forced to finally abide by Wikipedia policy. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 07:29, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply