| This is VenFlyer98's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives:
Index,
1Auto-archiving period: 7 days
 |
Index
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I saw that you undid my revisions for all the bus routes, but I feel that they should be added somewhere because they are technically operated by American Airlines and are included in the passenger count (the busses are just replacements for E-145s and other American Eagle Aircraft). BlindGiraffe123 ( talk) 10:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- @ BlindGiraffe123: Hello, these routes are not replacement routes. Additionally they are not operated by American or any American Eagle carrier, they are operated by Landline which is not an Eagle carrier. This was previously discussed at WP:AIRPORTS and bus routes are a violation of WP:NOTTRAVEL.
- Thank you!
VenFlyer98 (
talk)
23:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. BlindGiraffe123 ( talk) 01:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to add
unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at
SkyTeam, you may be
blocked from editing. Adding unsourced entries and marking them as needing sources is clearly accepting that there is a policy on citing every piece of information. You have violated
WP:VERIFY.
Jetstreamer
Talk
12:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Just digging the fact that this is a
level 3 warning assuming bad faith. That's fun.
VenFlyer98 (
talk)
01:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- You already had a second-level warning for adding uncited material and are well aware of
WP:VERIFY. I don't see the fun in this,--
Jetstreamer
Talk
13:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- You must certainly be fun at parties. Just seeing what accurate information I can get on that page since you pretty much safeguard it. Totally get it violating policy, just seeing what I can push (understand that’s wrong). Have a good one! VenFlyer98 ( talk) 21:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- You already had a second-level warning for adding uncited material and are well aware of
WP:VERIFY. I don't see the fun in this,--
Jetstreamer
Talk
13:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
It was just confirmed by Embraer, see above section that I also edited and sourced. In planespotter.net, which is the source for this section, it says that the ERJ-145s are in Mexicana's possession, so they should also be listed here. Aeromax38 ( talk) 15:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi,
Thank you for your help in editing & improving the article on Long Island MacArthur Airport – and for helping me better understand WP:AIRPORTS and WP:NOTTRAVEL. I have been wanting to start doing more work on airport articles for some time now (especially in and around the NY metropolitan area), as a local who has always adored infrastructure & aviation and as someone who has long enjoyed contributing to Wikipedia – and so I appreciate the feedback which you have provided me with in the change logs. I am hoping to eventually get the article to a rating of at least GA (it needs a reassessment no matter what, though, as it is still rated as start class; I believe the last time it was assessed was 2009), and so the refresher was greatly appreciated. Again, I apologize for those good-faith errors I made and appreciate all the feedback you left.
That said, I have a question regarding destination maps out of curiosity (I recall from a year or so ago that you told me they are sometimes unnecessary, when I added one to the article without realizing they weren't necessary for the article): when is it appropriate to include those maps in an article (if ever)? I have looked through the WP:AIRPORTS talk archives and read through the content section, but have yet to find any clear, straight-to-the-point answer to that respect (then again, I saw through the archives that they have long been a subject of debate). I will not be re-adding a destination map unless I know for certain that one is warranted – and would like to help add/remove them from other airport articles that I may come across, and so any advice is greatly appreciated.
Thanks again.
Cheers, Infrastorian ( talk) 19:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, no worries! We're both just trying to make the article as best as it can be, and I appreciate you trying to get it up to GA. As for maps, there really hasn't been any clear consensus on it, but most users in the aviation project seem to be against it. Really could use another discussion over at WP:AIRPORTS, but I think it's generally agreed to not use maps. Again, could probably use a new discussion on it. Thanks! VenFlyer98 ( talk) 04:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
What did you change the date format? Since this is a European airport, shouldn’t the format be Day/Month/Year? 2600:1700:8544:D000:CD4C:E5E4:C3C8:23DC ( talk) 12:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Correct. Don’t know why you changed it to MM/DD/YYYY after, then. It’s all fixed now. VenFlyer98 ( talk) 18:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
I've changed the sources to Simple Flying for both MSY-LAS, MSY-LAX. Both of these websites correctly source what you can find and book directly on flybreeze.com. I wouldn't source an O/D pair without it being bookable directly on the airlines webpage. Bretonrlong ( talk) 04:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hello @ Bretonrlong:,
- I know Breeze has these routes bookable. However, none of the sources you’ve provided meet WP:RS. SimpleFlying is not reliable either (see WP:SIMPLEFLYING).
- Thanks!
VenFlyer98 (
talk)
02:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- This has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard of. So because someone considers these data sources to “not be reliable” the page is displaying incorrect destination information for the airport. This page is UNRELIABLE!! The route is literally bookable directly on Breezes own website, how much more reliable can you get.
Bretonrlong (
talk)
22:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- @ Bretonrlong:
- This is the policies of Wikipedia, please see
WP:RS and
WP:V. You need reliable, secondary sources. The ones you are providing are not reliable. I am not the only one who would consider these unreliable, plenty of users do. Not sure how often you edit airport articles, but they need to follow Wikipedia's policy on reliability. If you find a reliable source, then add it so the article is accurate, but don't get
angry at me for following Wikipedia's own policies.
VenFlyer98 (
talk)
23:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've actually been editing airport articles for years. It makes zero sense to need a secondary source if the airline themselves offer said service FOR SALE on their own website. What exactly is needed for proof a receipt of purchase? I would never trust any secondary source over the primary airline source. By reverting the page it not only makes the wiki page unreliable, but also reduces public trust in the page. As for some of the airline blogs, especially those that appear to now be AI generated, I understand your point completely and agree those shouldn't be sourced. However, if the airline itself is offering the service and its bookable directly on their website (not through a third party website) that should be considered a source truth (better than a secondary source).
Bretonrlong (
talk)
00:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is the part I have a beef with
- "I know Breeze has these routes bookable. However, none of the sources you’ve provided meet WP:RS. SimpleFlying is not reliable either (see WP:SIMPLEFLYING)."
- Curious, why are you just undoing rather than contributing and providing better sources? In the above statement you even admit the routes are bookable. So if several hundred passengers book this service, but no one writes an article about said service, that service doesn't exist?
Bretonrlong (
talk)
00:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Does this article suffice?
-
https://neworleanscitybusiness.com/blog/2024/07/08/breeze-airways-adds-nonstop-route-from-new-orleans-to-tourist-destination/
Bretonrlong (
talk)
00:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- @ Bretonrlong: It has been discussed numerous times at WP:AIRPORTS that you need RELIABLE SECONDARY sources for airline routes (see WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT, which states "airlines and destination tables may only be included in articles when independent, reliable, secondary sources demonstrate they meet WP:DUE. A review of the closure of that RfC yielded no consensus to overturn it"). There has been RfCs about this before and most recently, it was agreed that these tables need secondary, reliable sources when adding information. As for me reverting, I have been trying to find better sources but none are available yet and I couldn't find any. The link you provided is the best one I found, it just doesn't mention the date for the LAX route. Additionally, using the airline's own website and booking engine is WP:OR, which is why that isn't allowed to be a source. Feel free to trust the primary source, but on Wikipedia we use secondary reliable sources. VenFlyer98 ( talk) 01:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've actually been editing airport articles for years. It makes zero sense to need a secondary source if the airline themselves offer said service FOR SALE on their own website. What exactly is needed for proof a receipt of purchase? I would never trust any secondary source over the primary airline source. By reverting the page it not only makes the wiki page unreliable, but also reduces public trust in the page. As for some of the airline blogs, especially those that appear to now be AI generated, I understand your point completely and agree those shouldn't be sourced. However, if the airline itself is offering the service and its bookable directly on their website (not through a third party website) that should be considered a source truth (better than a secondary source).
Bretonrlong (
talk)
00:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- This has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard of. So because someone considers these data sources to “not be reliable” the page is displaying incorrect destination information for the airport. This page is UNRELIABLE!! The route is literally bookable directly on Breezes own website, how much more reliable can you get.
Bretonrlong (
talk)
22:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)