User:KrmezljavKuza

Primary editing interests
Recently, most of my editing activity has focused on updating out of date information and statistics. I also frequently update articles to reflect current (or sometimes not-so-current) events. Finally, I often fix small errors (typos, grammar mistakes, etc.) and cleanup sections by improving organization, flow, and the use of references. My primary topics of interest are I am also a member of WikiProject Slovenia.
 * Airports and airlines
 * Geography and borders
 * Slovenia and related topics
 * The European Union

In November 2021, I started systematically updating traffic statistics for US airports, state by state. The data for many of these airports is woefully (sometimes as much as 10 or 11 years) out of date despite being readily available.

I have also been recently involved in updating airport destination lists to reflect newly-announced changes to airline routes. Such changes are being made at a rapid pace, as airlines adapt to the varying recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Should airport destination tables have a third column for references?
Articles for commercial airports typically list commercial flights as a table listing the destinations served by each airline. The format for this table is specified by Template:Airport destination list. Most airports seem to have this table in 2 columns: airline and destination. Some airports have 3 columns: airline, destination, and reference(s). The template explicitly states that a third column (and even a fourth column, though it's unclear what such a column would contain) is allowed but optional. Some airport articles have third columns, others don't, seemingly at random. One possible reason for the differences appears to be the sources: airports with a single source for all destinations don't list the references, airports with different sources for each airline (which are far more common in the United States) have a third column. But there are many exceptions. This brings me to the main question of this section: should there be a policy for the presence or absence of a third references column?
 * Some airports without a third column: South Bend International Airport, Frankfurt Airport, Ministro Pistarini International Airport, Phoenix–Mesa Gateway Airport, Guangzhou Baiyun International Airport
 * Some airports with a third column: Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, Stockholm Arlanda Airport, Indira Gandhi International Airport, Newark Liberty International Airport

References for airport destinations
In a recent edit to Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport, I modified the destination table entry for Delta Air Lines' flight to Madrid to reflect the resumption date given by the Delta timetable. However, I was quickly informed that this was

I agree that the source isn't very good. In fact, it's not very good for two reasons. First, it arguably isn't an independent source according to the definition on Verifiability. Second, visiting the link doesn't immediately show the information for which the source was cited, i.e. the resumption date of the service. Finding that requires entering several pieces of information in search boxes, and doing multiple searches.

However, I argue both that the information is correct, and that there are no better sources for the information. First, correctness. The Delta timetable does not show any flights to MAD before 16 March 2022. FlightAware and FlightRadar24 both confirm that the flight is not currently operating, and has not operated for at least a month before November 2021. This means that the article's current state isn't right, and the 16 March 2022 start date corrects that problem.

Next, the existence of better sources. As noted above, the source I used, i.e. the Delta timetable, is not ideal because it does not link directly to the information, nor is it, arguably, independent. However, what source is listed in the references column for the entire Delta Air Lines entry, more than 100 destinations? It's the Delta timetable—in fact, it's an outdated link to a Delta timetable from 2015. Since Delta did not announce the date of the resumption explicitly in a press release, no outside media organizations covered the start date, and no other sources could have a better claim to accuracy than the Delta time table itself.

Why do I bring up this example? It's not because I am disappointed that someone rejected my edits—that's a natural part of the collaborative process of Wikipedia. It is because I believe it showcases 2 important, somewhat generalizable observations:
 * Poorly cited correct information is better than poorly cited incorrect information. I'd even go so far as to argue that uncited correct information is better than poorly cited incorrect information, and that fact is often not considered by editors reverting new edits to a variety of articles.
 * There seems to be a consensus exempting airport destination tables from Verifiability. I do not know of a single commercial airport page which does not have as its source for the destination table either the airport website (certainly not independent) or an airline timetable (also arguably not independent). Is this ok? I would argue that it is, since the policy on third party verifiable sources is that

So as long as there are some independent sources for the subject of an article, it's acceptable to use non-independent sources for particular facts within an article.

Notable mistakes and vandalism

 * From Bismarck Municipal Airport as of 14 November 2021: wrong percentage calculations.


 * From Presidency of the Council of the European Union as of 6 July 2021: vandalism of Janez Janša.