Talk:Sofia Airport

Future Routes
I'm starting this discussion because it's clear there's conflict among the path forward in this. I'm going to add I don't think protection is the way to go, the users reinstating future routes have not once participated in any of the discussions here. But I digress. I find it very difficult to argue that future routes are encylopedic. WP:NOTTRAVEL being the biggest issue, regardless of referencing. I ask what the encylopedic value of this information is for the users that keep reinstating it? Sure new airlines are encylopedic, but that can be handled in prose. I do not find future routes to be encylopedic, actually I think routes that have ended are. Note that because it's been done in the past is not a valid reason for it to continue. Just my 2 cents. Garretka (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Too right. Listing services that do not even exist is going too far per WP:Recentism, WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL. Intentionaly or not it is advertising and has no place on Wikipedia.Charles (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree. Adding properly referenced announcements of future destinations help keep the table up-to-date. They also don't violate WP:NOTTRAVEL, which ensures Wikipedia is not a travel guide - which means articles are not written in the promotional way found in a travel guide or include best restaurant/hotel lists. Future routes are also used without issue in almost every other airport article, and it's illogical to say only future routes fail WP:NOTTRAVEL - if they do, the whole table does. Travel guides rarely if ever include the level of encyclopedic detail found here with regards to airport routes. SportingFlyer  talk  22:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * In my honest opinion the entire table has no place on Wikipedia. There is no requirement for the table to be up to date, in fact keeping it up to date only fuels the WP:NOTTRAVEL arguement.
 * You say encyclopedic detail, but encyclopedias are only as good as the sources that are used. These tables are rife with original research, and while I understand the knee jerk opinions of the aviation community (I myself am a pilot) any time these tables are questioned, they are an example of WP:FANCRUFT. Garretka (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Launch a RfC then. This isn't the place to gain consensus for the removal of the tables, or for the removal of future routes. I don't think this is fancruft, nor do I think it's WP:OR when you find a reference to a secondary source which discusses the route. I personally use the tables to get an understanding of a city's connectivity to the rest of the world from a geographic point of view, so I don't even use them for what their intended purpose would seem to be. SportingFlyer  talk  22:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have the time nor do I have the drive to launch one. 100% agree if everything was sourced by secondary sources there would be no issue. But that's not the case. Edits like these to name a few, only support my case about WP:OR and WP:FANCRUFT. The fact that they're useful is not a valid arguement I'll add. There's no doubt they're useful, but this isn't the platform for it. But that's a discussion for another day. Garretka (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem including future routes as long as they are properly referenced. After all, the whole wikipedia contains information about future and expected events, doesn't it? Should we not write about US presidential elections in 2020 then, just because they have not occurred yet? Bai brother (talk) 07:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Could someone please explain why this is the only page being constantly reverted compared to any other airport page showing future routes? We have not received any feedback from users Charles & SovalValtos who are the ones continuously reverting future routes. Users Bai brother, Garretka (a professional pilot) and SportingFlyer have all provided their logical arguments. Thank you for providing evidence you are applying the same actions on other airport pages with future routes for "advertising reasons" or "speculative plans" cosmic chocolate (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I certainly can't. Project-wide consensus (not by RfC but by practice) is that future routes are allowed if properly referenced. SportingFlyer  T · C  16:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Certainly ironic. 2 Englishmen from the middle of nowhere and a Kiwi dictating over Bulgaria. Definitely the last thing on my mind. British Empire times are gone for a long, long time now. Thank you for literally ruining and poisining this Sofia Airport page with your toxic presence. Your warning messages and user blocking are just laughable. cosmic chocolate (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody is intent on "ruining" or "poisoning" any article. The Wikipedia standards, particularly on verifibility, need to be complied. Ajf773 (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Trust me, this is absolutely what you 3 are doing. User Garretka has provided you with a brilliant argument seen from a pilot's perspective. Refer to his note signed 22:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC). Charles is consistently claiming that this is spam and acting passively, not backing his theory. Additionally, the sources provided where absolutely the same from other "unaffected" airport Wiki pages (typically Routesonline which is a considerably reliable source), plus the airline official website. Why don't you at least make the effort and provide an example of a "non-promotional" or "not spam" link so we can apply it, instead of undoing the ones inserted by myself of other users contributing to this page? Last but not least, imposing double standards is literally gutting. cosmic chocolate (talk) 06:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If that citation is on other airport articles, it needs to be removed there as well. That's not an argument for inclusion. Furthermore schedules for seasonal charters are very difficult to find and are not necessarily "scheduled routes." SportingFlyer  T · C  07:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am really asking that you stop deleting the future routes. Both the Eurowings and Lauda routes were properly referenced, I don't understand why you keep doing the same thing. Once you convince the editors of pages for some major airports (Frankfurt, Vienna, etc.) that this is the right approach, I could agree to apply it here. But I do not see any reason why the experiments should be done with the Sofia airport page.Bai brother (talk) 06:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Statistics - busiest routes
I flagged this section a while back as this appears to be original research. The only sources seem to be a flight search for Sofia Airport's official website and a live flight tracker website. These tables are also non-standard for airport articles. To be this goes against WP:NOTSTATS WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. Happy to discuss this further, even bringing it to the attention of WP:AIRPORTS however I shall state my opinion that this table should be removed. Ajf773 (talk) 19:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest that it stays. Many other airport pages have this table, and as you mention yourself its source is the official Sofia airport website.Bai brother (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE might be useful if looking at featured and good articles to see best practice but not looking at the general run of poor quality airport articles. With Wikipedia not being a guide, ephemeral detail such as this could safely be left to be found via the official website external link and removed from the article.SovalValtos (talk) 09:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and removed this section. There are other airport articles with these tables, those should be removed as well. Ajf773 (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for informing us that there are other airport articles with those tables (what a surprise), but you are obviously not doing the same on their pages. As usual, it's the typical bunch of bored war editors seeking attention. You ruined this page with your presence.
 * . All I'm trying to do is uphold a certain standard on Wikipedia, which includes adding reliably sourced and verifiable content. There are numerous edits who will agree. After all the warnings you've received (including one block for edit warring on this very article), it is a concept that you seem to have trouble grasping. Ajf773 (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Future routes again
Why are future routes being removed there is no consensus to say they shouldn't be removed and why are only certain ones being removed, all the routes that have been added are correctly sourced, why is it only being done on certain routes and pages and by the 2 same editors. Air7777 (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Try scrolling up a few threads.Charles (talk) 06:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Vrazhdebna
Let's change "Location" from "Vrazhdebna" to "Sofia". Since somebody might object, I list my reasons before proceeding: 195.96.242.37 (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is how it is listed in Летище_София.
 * The name "Vrazhdebna" means "hostile" in Bulgarian and other slavic languages. The government has been trying to reduce its use in reference to the airport, with the exception of the Vrazhdebna Military Base. Quite understandably they'd be OK with naming some military facilities "hostile", but not the most important civilian gateway to the country.
 * Historically closest to the airport was the village of Vrazhdebna but this is no longer so. After many decades of urban development, currently some of the major residential areas of Sofia are closer to the passenger terminals than is the relatively obscure village of Vrazhdebna, which is on the opposite side of the runway.
 * Officially, from 1961 Vrazhdebna is not a separate village but is a quarter of Sofia city. And the airport is not in that quarter. The passenger terminals, runway, tower and most other buildings fall within the administrative borders of Slatina. Only some of the military facilities are in Vrazhdebna.
 * Done. 195.96.242.37 (talk) 08:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)