Talk:Sofia Airport - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Charlesdrakew (talk | contribs) at 19:31, 10 November 2018 (→Moving forward: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:31, 10 November 2018 by Charlesdrakew (talk | contribs) (→Moving forward: cmt)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Aviation: Airports

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the airport project.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

European Union

	European Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Bulgaria High‑importance

	Bulgaria portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BulgariaWikipedia:WikiProject BulgariaTemplate:WikiProject BulgariaBulgaria
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why did the idiot 217.189.147.6 delete the 2 new pictures?

Can the idiot that deleted the 2 pictures of the new terminal explain why s/he did it! Me and several other people did not spend hours in front of the monitor so you can delete our work in a matter of seconds! If you still pretend that you are not an idiot, plese give us your reasons for deleteing the pictures! Yeah, I am sure that you don't even know what I am talking about. Делян 22:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, it is against Misplaced Pages policy to call someone an "idiot".

Secondly, 217.189.147.6 didn't delete the images, they just deleted the links to images that had already been deleted.

Thirdly, the images were deleted because they were against Misplaced Pages policy (no copyright notice), because the person that uploaded it didn't follow policy in uploading them. The only person you can blame is the person that uploaded the image for not doing it correctly.

Therefore, assuming the person who uploaded the work is yourself, aren't you the "idiot"? --kjd 03:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't even this person that uploaded the pictures it was another editor and the person that deleted them was User:Jaranda. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I almost started feeling like an "idiot"! How would you feel if somebody wipes out your work without any explanation? If User:Jaranda deleted the images, how come I don't see his name under the history tab? I think I should ask User:Jaranda if s/he knows how to type in english, because it is highly recommended to give some explanation when you delete somebody else's work. And finally, I'll kindly ask User:Ogicito to spend another 30 minutes of his time to post his deleted pictures again this time without the copyright notice. Делян 13:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaranda provided an explanation when they deleted it under the image's history page . And it doesn't take 30 minutes to reupload a file to Misplaced Pages. --kjd 15:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Delyan, I'm not sure what your problem is. You didn't upload the pictures, nor did you add them to the article so nobody wiped out your work. By the way this is a Wiki and "your work" and "my work" gets edited (wiped out) all the time. All the work was done by Ogicito and they are not complaining. The reason you don't see Jaranda's name in the Sofia Airport history is because the pictures were deleted from their own image page and not this article. Jaranda did noting wrong and in fact should be complimented for protecting Misplaced Pages by deleting images that may violate someones copyright. I would like to see some sort of an apology to 217.189.147.6 and Jaranada for the rudness that you have shown them. Here's the link that shows Jaranda also delted the second picture. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Cambridge, you seem to be more concerned about Jaranda! Step in my shoes for a moment. How do I know that the images have their own page and I am supposed to go there and look for an explanation? Can it be more complicated than that? I guess the system is not designed with a human factor in mind! I simply go to the page and I see that the nice pictures are deleted, then I go to the history tab, which is the most obvious place to look for explanations and I see NO explanation there! This is like you having to pay a fine, but nobody tells you what the fine is for! Yes, the owner of the pictures is Ogicito, but him and me started the new title and that is why I feel some kind of ownership here! I doubt Ogicito will post images again! The damage has been done already! I am sorry to Jaranda and the IP guy, but I don't think that they even read this! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Delyan (talk • contribs) 13:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

It seems to me that there are several things you should read Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith, Misplaced Pages:Civility and Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Any chance somone can add a distance from Sofia city centre?

Wizz Air's Sofia-Varna flights start on 12th of July, 2008! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delyan (talk • contribs) 15:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, who added flights to New York and Montreal? Come out and show some prove.....Делян (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Winter fog & not-fully-operational ILS

I just endured an involuntary 7 hour bus ride from Burgas since the fog has prevented most air traffic to and from Sofia airport the last couple of days. I've been informed that fog is quite common during the winter season, and combined with a missing or not-fully-operational Instrument landing system makes this a common event. Any comments? Raffen (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

What idiot did the current destinations layout?

I cannot understand the destinations layout! ITS HORRIBLE, what idiot thought it was an improvement! I think it needs sorting right away!Zaps93 (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Airvia-logo.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Airvia-logo.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Misplaced Pages files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

No source for the 2016 total passanger number

The table says 4,980,387, the source says nothing of that. FkpCascais (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

How is that I still dont see that number anywhere after this? Source 3 and 4 claim it (articles just citing alegedly Sofia airport sayiing that), but source 44 not. WHere are the OFFICIAL numbers? FkpCascais (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The airport appears to keep their statistics here. They line up to the 4,980,387 number. Kuru (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Finally. Thanks. FkpCascais (talk) 01:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. Kuru (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Sofia Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

policy clarification - future routes with 3rd party reference

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

We have an ensuing edit war in this article (Sofia Airport) which I would like your help in resolving. As a result you can also help clarify Misplaced Pages general policy on the matter.

I, and other users, claim that future routes in an article about an airport or airline - when properly referenced by an independent source e.g. an article in a neutral news site - is valid encyclopedic information. It is in fact common practice in airport articles across Misplaced Pages. As a result, we have been adding such information to this and other articles.

One other user claims the opposite, that all future route information is unencyclopedic and constitutes advertising and promotional information. As a result that user has been deleting all such information from this article, even when referenced to an independent source, and intends to do that in articles of other airports as well.

You can check out the history of the page for more details.

Your comments and clarifications are welcome. Tdunsky (talk) 05:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

When referenced properly (using third party sources such as news articles, or primary sources explicitly stating the fact), there has never been an issue with having future routes listed. Using airline timetables, as I see in easyjet, is original research in my opinion and could very well be removed or have a citation needed tag added. To add, I don't see it as being promotional as neither fares or schedules are mentioned in the tables. Garretka (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

what are "primary sources explicitly stating the fact"? Is an official statement or press release by an airline, stating a route will open on a specific date, considered such a source?

And about airline timetables or route maps - aren't they considered evidence for the existence of a route? Tdunsky (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand using such material is original research, as long as no further conclusions (other than the information they intend to support) are drawn.--Jetstreamer 23:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Correct, primary sources would be an official statement from the airline stating start/stop dates.

Route maps may very well be ok, but timetables, in my opinion, are problematic. Yes they provide evidence a flight exists, but they cannot be used to state start and stop dates, or establish seasonality, per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Garretka (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

There are companies that provide timetables including start and end dates.--Jetstreamer 00:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure there are. But I have yet to see that used to reference routes; I know that doesn't mean it hasn't been done, but I digress. Timetable might not be the appropriate term, booking engine would be more accurate. There are many users that use the booking engine when citing start and stop dates/establish seasonality, which I believe fits the definition of OR and SYNTH. Garretka (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I meant published timetables in pdf format, not search engines.--Jetstreamer 02:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Just wait ? I do not have a large opinion on this, but I'd tend towards not including it as verging into WP:SPECULATION -- it seems too small a detail to be notable except in unusual circumstances, and not a big deal to just wait until it is actually happened. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTAGUIDE. "An encyclopedia article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, not a complete exposition of all possible details." Despite the very common practice to list routes and so on in airline and airport articles, this is against Misplaced Pages policy. Complete route information is not a summary but, as the phrase implies, a complete exposition. The fact that many (if not most) airport and airline articles contain a complete list of routes instead of a summary-style section of prose about the important routes is against Misplaced Pages policy, and a result of the selective enforcement and the disjointed structure of policy pages.Use reliable sources and focus on information that is prominent in those sources. Bright☀ 20:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Bright☀ that there should be a summary in line with policy. Further, undue weight given to future or current, probably ephemeral, routes at the expense of a broad exposition of the subject of routes over the decades is not supported by the balance pointed by Misplaced Pages:Recentism.SovalValtos (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

After a thought, I sort of disagree. Althought WP:NOTAGUIDE is a usefull policy for overall issues in Misplaced Pages, the fact that we have hard-working editors willing to have complete and updated informations about the routes, ends up being a positive thing. I see some contradiction here while saying "a summary-style section of prose about the important routes" because unless we have a secondary source refering to it so we could use it in the prose, it would end up being a selective biased selection of routes. Consequently, having a table which is updated and sourced with all routes, ends up being usefull information and an extra Misplaced Pages provides to visitors. FkpCascais (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Guys, whatever you are claiming that Sofia Airport is "promoting itself for advertising purposes" or all this utter nonsense is respected. I have, myself, compared the rest of the nearby capitals and it is only Sofia Airport with the war edit. So, all those pointless claims of yours are simply based on your personal, negative point of view. You are just simply lucky that you have a more privileged status on Misplaced Pages allowing you to "warn" or those "threataning" messages, or else you remain to be disrespectful. Thank you for ruining this page we all kept editing and improving for the last couple of years. Remember, Karma will act sooner or later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LimaZulu84 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

But wait. Don´t be unfair. Not sure if you understood my comment, but from what I understand, I support you view. I don´t see a reason that the article about Sofia airport should be any different from more than 90% of all important airport articles of the world. For instance, I agree with Bright that this is an encyclopedia and that prose is what is favoured, and within the prose, finding secundary sources pointing out the historically relevant routes. However, what we are dealing here in practice is the routes list which is found in nearly every airport article. So they are two separate things. I agree that the list should be complete, updated and sourced the best as possible. Now, I am no expert regarding the sourcing for the routes list problem, if there is any. In my view, that is the only thing to be setled out. FkpCascais (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Please, provide us with an example of another airport having similar future routes, not "advertising itself" and belonging to your "90% list". We can simply apply their model. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LimaZulu84 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Henri Coandă International Airport in its list of destinations is full of "Begins/ends" notes. FkpCascais (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:OSE. I'm indifferent in this discussion, I've long advocated secondary sources should be used to avoid WP:OR and to satisfy WP:V. I agree there's policy based arguments for not having the tables at all, and WP:10YT suggests weight be given to past events rather than recent events which can be seen as WP:NOTNEWS. Garretka (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Henri Coandă International Airport doesn't even have official sources for future routes. Take Ryanair as an example. With the example, you have just provided, I am afraid we will be unable to find a common language. You have people editing this page for years now and we have never faced any edit war issues. What's crazy, is that you are all clearly deleting the future routes but leaving the ending ones. Coincidence? I don´t think so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LimaZulu84 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Fully protected for 1 week. Note that this is the third full protection this year. Airplaneman ✈ 17:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I have looked for Airport featured articles to see what they have, and found none that include tables of airlines and destinations. Only lower grade articles have them. That might be a good precept to guide us into working to remove the table from this article. Could an editor give us a draft text summary replacement to consider? Incidentally this would save us hard-worked editors from the task of attempting to keep detail up to the minute, when there is no consensus what that detail should be, and free us for more profitable editing.SovalValtos (talk) 05:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree to get any airport article to FA status the tables will likely stand in the way. But removing them will be treated like a live grenade. How do we handle that? Do we just list the airlines? Garretka (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Please can we have a suggestion as to how the continued inclusion of tables can be reconciled with moving to FA status? Would moving towards FA by now removing the tables be better? At first a replacement summary of route history over the long existence of the airport may not sufficiently notable to be to sourced, so may have to await a section's inclusion for suitable sources on their history to be published. There is no hurry.SovalValtos (talk) 08:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey comrades, what is happening? What are you doing here? The revert is OK, but not for the right reasons. The problem is that is unsourced. But I dont understand why you insist on the NOTTRAVEL removal of begin/end of routes when all other airport articles include that information. What we demand is to be properly sourced. FkpCascais (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

removal of entire airlines from destination list

User:Charlesdrakew,

Why, in your war against future route information, do you keep removing Ryanair and Easyjet in their entirety from the destination list of this airport (present and future routes alike)?

for Ryanair, Sofia Airport is actually a hub. Funny that you claim they don't fly to and from a hub of theirs. Tdunsky (talk) 06:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Progressing towards Featured Article

There has been a request at the top of the article for more citations for over two years. Plenty of unsourced material remains, notably in the Airlines and destinations tables. There has been some support above for removing the tables completely with the long-term aim of using text instead. I am not going to remove the tables immediately to give other editors more time to comment, however I intend to start removing uncited material.SovalValtos (talk) 10:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Per longstanding consensus, most recently here: airports are allowed to have destination tables. I do not support removing them. SportingFlyer talk 11:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you SportingFlyer for contributing, others have not used talk. I looked at the link you included, but as I read it it did not establish a consensus, rather the reverse. Please further help by showing us how the retention of current airline and destination tables (ones that use the present tense) could be compatible with achieving FA status.SovalValtos (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@SovalValtos: I'm sorry, why don't you think there's a consensus to include destination tables in articles? See also , in which Option D - removing tables - was rejected, and , in which destination tables were kept. The biggest issue here is stopping the edit war over the destination tables themselves, since many other airports don't suffer from the same issues. SportingFlyer talk 12:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Calgary International Airport#Airlines and destinations and the subsequent sections might be of value. Garretka (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I do not have the time at present to consider all the helpful links, so will look forward to others who think the tables are compatible with Featured Article status proving their point by their progressing this article to FA whilst including them. Meanwhile I will help by removing unsourced material.SovalValtos (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I have updated the airlines & destinations table to include a reference column found on other good quality airport Misplaced Pages pages. I believe this is a good start. I suggest future routes should, as per general custom, be sourced inline, with current routes referenced in the reference column. SportingFlyer talk 23:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages policy takes precedence over any local conventions decided by a WikiProject's membership. If these are incompatible it is the project that needs to make changes.Charles (talk) 08:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Charles, please stop removing properly cited information. Your edits are becoming disruptive. SportingFlyer talk 08:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

From what I gather, the problem isn't the cited material or the destination table but the addition of future destinations. Ideally we should only include current destinations unless encyclopedic enough to warrant new routes that are confirmed to operate in the future. Ajf773 (talk) 09:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The majority of other airports include future destinations in the destination tables as long as they are properly referenced. I'm not sure consensus has been specifically noted at any RfC, but it is current common practice, and it makes sense - if someone notices a future route has started, they can remove the "starting on" date, which seems easier than doing the research to update the destination table when the route starts. I don't see why this article would be an exception. SportingFlyer talk 10:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Ideally, historical routes should also be kept, whether in this table or a seperate table. Per WP:RECENTISM, we shouldn't be giving more weight to recent events, i.e. Future routes. Garretka (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Is there a single source that could be used to ref current routes?SovalValtos (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree in regards to historical routes. There's no single usable source that I know of for routes, though. SportingFlyer talk 20:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Some airports list their destinations, which, while a primary source, are perfectly fine as there is no interpretation required; they are stating facts. Larger airports, however, tend not to do this. There are lots of sources that will require original research to prove. So, no, finding a single source will be challenging to say the least. Garretka (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

We shouldn't keep any original research, but that's very different than using WP:PRIMARY sources... SportingFlyer talk 23:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Future destinations

Charlesdrakew once again reverted the sourced Ryanair future flight to Bergamo in the directory table claiming it violates WP:NOTDIR without removing any other future flights from the table. I have no desire for an edit war, but WP:NOTDIR isn't a valid argument for not keeping this information. I'd like consensus on whether we can include this particular flight in the table to avoid an edit war. SportingFlyer talk 21:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

This information is to anyone with a little common sense part of a directory. It also fails WP:PROMO, "Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Misplaced Pages to do so." Stating when a service will start is a public service announcement. Charles (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

No one is promoting the service, we're just including cited information in these destination tables which longstanding consensus says are Misplaced Pages-acceptable. SportingFlyer talk 21:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOT is a bigger consensus.Charles (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOT actually anywhere doesn´t directly enter in conflict with updating starting and ending flights. I completelly understand why is hard for editors to understand why you insist on that on this specific article when all other airport articles update their flights list. FkpCascais (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually it does, as I pointed out a few lines above, but WP:NOT is not an exhaustive list of what is banned. It sets out an ethos of what is encyclopedic with some examples given. When we have a policy titled NOTTRAVEL it is hard to see how details of when services start or end can be compatible. Such ephemeral information does not make stable encyclopedic content but is more news.Charles (talk) 09:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Airports main bussiness is dealing with flights. Companies and destinations provide that info. Once we have them on table, they better be sourced and updated. Then the airport articles should have sections about history, infrastructure, and basically that´s it. Personally, I expanded the historical sections of several airport articles, and I never added, or removed, any destinations. However, I understand, and appreciate, editors that keep those sections updated. So, I cannot understand what´s the point of having a destinations table (all ariport articles have) if we don´t allow editors to keep them updated? FkpCascais (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, I don´t see that listing the new destinations as violating any point at WP:PROMO. New destinations are just a fact, and are added same way as other destinations that are already listed (the end of routes is listed as well, same way). PROMO would be violated if some new destination was highlighted in comparison to others. Actually your removal of the addition of certain announced future routes would end up creating a problem with PROMO, because we would then be cherry-picking one routes over others, and that would be favoring some and promoting them. Having the list complete and updated actually solves the problem of promo, as treats all airlines and all routes same way, neutrally. FkpCascais (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no reason to list any of them. It is WP:Recentism and ephemeral, not encyclopedic content. It is a directory, contrary to WP:NOTDIR. Misplaced Pages never sets out to include every detail that can be proved, only to give an overview of the subject.Charles (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

As I've noted, we include referenced future destinations on almost every airport per consensus. If you disagree, start an RfC and see if other people agree with you, and until then, please stop reverting sourced future destinations. SportingFlyer talk 22:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Potential source

Here is a potential source which might help in the transition of the problematic Airlines and destinations table into more suitable text summary . It at least shows one route before the second world war.SovalValtos (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I support adding the source, but I do not support the conversion of the table into a text summary in order to maintain consistency with all other airports. SportingFlyer talk 21:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I also support adding the source. I'd like to see this article be bold and try a different direction, using text summaries may work. But I don't think it should be discounted without trying. Garretka (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I support using the source. It will move the article towards being encyclopedic rather than recentist and an advertising platform for current routes. Prose format is preferable to tables full of undue detail.Charles (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Another source that should repay worth exploring is The Statesman's Yearbook in its various annual editions. I have used it just once so far.SovalValtos (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Moving forward

Having allowed a reasonable time for contributions on talk, I am now starting the attempt to replace the still largely uncited airlines and destinations table with a summary in text. It is a simple start with the hope that others with access to suitable sources will expand the section. Particularly useful would be some sources for routes prior to 1989 and then again before the 2006 expansion. I would ask editors who might oppose this step to consider that the table format is unlikely to lead to FA and contribute positively rather than oppose out of hand, giving the attempt a few months to see how it develops.SovalValtos (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I completely disagree with this approach. How many airport pages do you see where there are references for each and every destination? Please return the table - what good is this summary if you don't find information about the current destinations? Who does really care about routes prior to 1989 and 2006?!

WP:OSE. Displaying current routes clearly violates WP:RECENTISM and is borderline WP:NOTTRAVEL. This is an encyclopedia, not a travel guide. Misplaced Pages is to give an overview of the topic, not every little detail. The summary in its current state is a good start. Garretka (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

OK but I would like to ask again - name even one page for a major airport which does not have the current routes.

All the other pages being against policy does not make it right.Charles (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

The question should be open in corresponding WikiProjects then. FkpCascais (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

You should not make this article victim of you proving a point. Since you claim it breaks so much policies, then it should not be difficult for you to open a broad discussion there and obtein consensus, which then you could use definitelly in such removals, and even remove those tables en masse. Until then, you should not remove the table. FkpCascais (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no requirement to do so. Wikiprojects are informal groupings.Charles (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Categories: