User talk:Andrewgprout/Archive 2

Delta as a hub at Heathrow
According to Delta, they list LHR as a hub and there is a reference stating that it is a hub but one user removed it saying it is not but according to Delta it is. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What Delta says or better sells is not relevant for us. We have a definition what a hub is - an airport which is not a base FROM which several routes are served. Delta operates flights TO Heathrow from its hubs. It is a focus destination, nothing else. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.171.176.125 (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Air Transat SJU
Hi, I know that in the article doesn't found the date of the first flight, but if you search in Amadeus, you will find that Air Transat flights to SJU begins on December 24. [unsigned comment]


 * whoever you are - "Amadeus" is not published information. Using it is probably original research Andrewgprout (talk) 06:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * RoutesOnline already announced dates for this. Already reinstated with the reference. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Secondary vs Primary
You always use this argument that Secondary sources are always great and Primary sources are never good. You obviously have not read carefully enough:

"Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:Biographies of living persons § Avoid misuse of primary sources, which is policy."

There is no "interpretation" of the primary source, which is Delta's list of hubs. While secondary sources are preferred, there is nothing stating that you cannot use a Primary source for FACTS. You are not allowed to use a primary source for INTERPRETATIONS/SYNTHESIS, stating LHR is a hub is a fact, not synthesis.

I will highlight this statement: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." That is exactly how the fact LHR is a hub is properly sourced by the primary source provided. It specifies that a secondary source is necessary for an INTERPRETATION, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.", however they are not required when stating a FACT. Stinger20 (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Stinger20 The problem here is that the only fact here is that Delta says London is a Hub - but it does it in a WP:RSSELF source very open to commercial exageration, and against the commonly held definition of what a hub is. so ..reputably published.. NO, ...straight forward...  well NO that is why we are having this conversation as there is no evidence that anyone else other that Delta itself considers London a Hub including those on the article talk page where this has already been discussed. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, I am fine with saying only DL calls it a hub so it should not be included. Since Virgin Atlantic and Delta mostly are operating O&D to/from LHR, it seems like it would make more sense to classify LHR as a focus city for both airlines, but I am not going to pursue this until DL makes it more clear that LHR is significant (i.e. making it bold on route maps, calling it a hub in press releases, etc.). I think we just need to use WP:COMMONSENSE when naming hubs/focus cities. Obviously it is difficult to determine exactly to call each airport in an airline's system. I personally feel that going by what the airline says is easiest and can be "sourced" even if it is a primary one. As you said in an earlier discussion, we really can only call ATL a hub using secondary source, but per WP:COMMONSENSE we need to use our best judgement, as other airports like DTW/MSP/LAX/SLC/SEA/CVG/BOS/LGA/JFK are obviously DL hubs and we are trying to write an informative encyclopedia. I feel like this primary vs secondary thing (and other issues like sourcing in tables etc) is hindering the ability to make improvements and keep the airport pages up to date. This is highlighted by a core policy, WP:IGNORE. The truth is that the majority of editors are trying to improve aviation articles truthfully, and editing with mindsets including every route MUST be sourced with a secondary source or it will be reverted immediately is kind of ridiculous. Same goes for the constant revision of hubs, if an airline has significant operations in a city, features it on press reports, bolds the city on route maps, or something to signify its importance in the network accompanied with a reliable source from the airlines, I don't see a problem with it per WP:IGNORE. If other editors have a problem with the classification, it should be discussed on the talk page. Such a strict interpretation of the "rules" is not necessary and frankly hurts the project as a whole, of course there are bounds to this, but that is where WP:COMMONSENSE comes in. Stinger20 (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Pink, Black and White Terraces
Hi Andrew, just a heads-up I am inserting the 2014-2017 work at Rotomahana into the scientific record via a brace of refereed research papers. The first published in the JNZS last December: the second will publish shortly. Once the second is out, I'll seek your leave to do a major edit of the Terraces page, inter alia confirming their latitudes, longitudes and altitudes.Counterrev11 (talk) 07:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

PSO routes
Within European airports, some have info regarding whether a route is a PSO route, while others do not. It seems inconsistent to have airports in some countries (Sweden or Greece for example) already having this info largely in place, while for other countries the information was incomplete. Either we should remove PSO information *everywhere* (and the equivalent in the USA, Essential Air Service is generally published on airports in wikipedia) or we add it everywhere. If we are to remove the PSO information on some European airports, we should remove it from all European airports and also remove Essential Air Service info for all airports in the USA. Your thoughts ? Pmbma (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * What you are adding is directory type information, and mostly jargon directory information at that - making the tables even more directory like than they already are.  Wikipedia is NOT a directory.  If you think the information is significant enough to be included in an encyclopaedia which it might very well be then the referenced information should be included in a sentence or two at an appropriate place within the text. Andrewgprout (talk) 03:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Pink and White Terraces page updated with latest published, refereed research
Hi Andrew, as advised earlier I today added the fascinating new research papers (Journal of New Zealand Studies 12/2016 and Journal of the Royal Society 6/2017),  by Bunn and Nolden to the page, while scrupulously observing Wiki protocols. This new research really requires a major revision of the page in my view. If you want me to attempt it, I'm now perhaps in the best position to do it if you wish.Counterrev11 (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent disruptive editing on Rhinelander–Oneida County Airport
Please stop making disruptive edits. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Jkd4855 Also According to what I've read so far none of the guidelines people are citing when they revert your edits is actually obsolete meaning it's recommended that you follow them but you are totally allowed to disregard them if you chose to. That one from WikiProject airport with the step by step article section by section clearly stated that the user has the complete choice to follow it how they want. therefore i ask that you not remove my icons. Jkd4855 (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Working in and around the FAA teaches one thing ... pick your battles from those that matter. I would mentor any editor to update quality facts first and flags or non-facts way down the road. Yes, I stated flags do inform and add direct benefit to small airport data pages which have few departure destinations, but, I will lean toward good FAA data for runways, passenger ops, and based aircraft. Thanks, airports build cities, once a city builds an airport. AirOpsExecnPlt (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Airport References
I have noticed today that your editing of airport pages has left a lot to be desired. Your whole idea of what makes a good reference is completely wrong - if Ryanair's website (and other carriers) aren't used then how can we accurately update airport pages on Wikipedia? The media only reports small numbers of flights. Secondly, please read up on the airport guide WP:Airport to familiarise yourself with the correct referencing procedures. Futurepilot1999 (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:AIRPORTS is local advice and can not replace (nor does it pretend to) the requirements of Wikipedia core policies which require references. WP:V being the main one here. The problem you have identified is indeed a problem.  The problem is that the airport destination tables do not really fit the requirements of Wikipedia, they in reality are way too detailed for an encyclopaedia and very very hard to properly reference - an encyclopaedia is a tertiary resource. There is no encyclopaedic requirement for this sort of detail to be comprehensive. So the option you have is give up on the tables and present the information in a more encyclopaedic way or keep the tables and follow the referencing requirements of Wikipedia as a whole.   It would help you to take note of what you are being told, you may not be aware, but this morning you were more or less warned to stop your disruption by a wikipedian of very great mana as we say where I live. Andrewgprout (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:171.5.69.54


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as User talk:171.5.69.54, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Speak As Muslim (talk) 10:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
Speak As Muslim (talk) 10:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Manchester Airport
It might just be better if you were to educate the IP in how to reference information correctly, rather than deleting information as unreference when an attempt has been made in good faith to provide a reference, even if such reference has not been provided in the correct way. Mjroots (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Austronesia
It is not a place correct, however there is a strong tradition in academic circles of understanding the regional culture in terms of austronesian culture and austronesian languages - cheers JarrahTree 09:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

From your edit at Austronesia
I think there might be a small problem, in that you might not understanding fully how certain aspects of how wikipedia works, in view of your responses to my edits at austronesia.

First as to how prods work.

Also providing a lengthy explanation of your insistence in an edit summary is not the place to place your reasoning.

For a start you left such a long comment there is no where it actually be totally read.

You could help by leaving comments on talk pages, not edit summaries.

Also I do not think you understand that a term like Austronesia - has been utilised by a range of academics from a number of countries over time.

For your explanation suggested deletion reason is a total contradiction of the evidence.

However due to real life issues I am no longer able to continue a possible conversation - so please take up at a talk page - In view of your repeated edit warring history recorded on this talk page - please understand prods and deletes and reverts are a lot less productive compared to actual negotiation and conversation - I have no idea where the ideal location might be but much better you take it up with someone else - as I am now out of the conversation - thanks... JarrahTree 04:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Reverting my edits at PIT Airport
Andrew, the whole point why the Reference columns were implemented on several airport pages were to eliminate the individual references next to each route. Yes, they are good reliable sources...but those are outdated now. They were first put there to reference when they'll be starting. After they begin, they are no longer relevant and can be referenced by the source in the Ref section. There is no need for additional references. You can take a look at other pages such as Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, or Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, or many others and they all follow this same formula. I am going to revert your edits one more time and if you still feel the need to have these outdated sources, then I'd suggest you put them in the Ref section. Sincerely, &#42;AirportUpdater* (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm just weighing in my opinion here, which coincides with WP:V, in that these inline references must not be removed as they are perfect sources. While I understand the ref column linking to the airline search page is being considered a ref, I consider it problematic in that it is also considered WP:OR which also must be avoided. I would encourage you to spark a discussion at WT:AIRPORTS prior to deleting anymore inline references. The references are not doing any harm in being there. Garretka (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

About airport terminal/concourse on CKG airport
Hello Andrewgprout,

Thanks for your edit on Chongqing Jiangbei International Airport

My reason is that not only travelers will read Wikipedia for information they need. Rather, a lot more people from other professions will also look to Wikipedia for extra information. Providing this information enables them to understand terminal and concourse layout, how the airlines in operation are distributed within different terminals, etc. Previously this has caused quite a lot of confusion, leading others to think T2 was composed of two terminals, while in fact, it consists of two halls connected by a skybridge.

Hopefully, this explanation can lessen your doubt and concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guofenghao22 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Use of edit summaries
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. Thanks! North America1000 08:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

AC624
I do not want to get into an edit war with you on this, but your logic makes little sense. It is common for people of North America to refer to NA cities as (city name), (state/province name) such as Los Angeles, California or Toronto, Ontario. I have never heard of people referring to a NA city by its city name, followed by the country name. As for the infobox, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada is definitely shorter than Boone County, Kentucky, United States in this article. My propose is to remove the city name altogether as they are redundant when the airport names clearly identify the cities they are in. C-GAUN (talk) 10:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Air new zealand
Because the fleet size was unchanging since 1 April 2017,so we don't have to check the deadline? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planelover19970704 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding the above particularly the "so we don't have to check the deadline?" bit - but you changed one of the entries to something not supported by the reference given - that is what I reverted. Andrewgprout (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I means the source says deadline is as of 31 August.But I have edited it 2 days ago,and you reverted it and said:Not what reference says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planelover19970704 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

With this edit [] you changed 9 787s to 10 787s despite what the reference said then and still says. Despite the fact that the 10th landed in Auckland last night we need to wait for the reference to change to reflect this change in Wikipedia. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Aramoana1976.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Aramoana1976.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Spammed film "The Wizard & the Commodore"
Thanks. I'm pretty sure they are a paid editor. Doug Weller talk 18:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

List of New Zealand films
Sorry about the formatting, I checked and thought it was ok. However, that's just more spam by the same paid editor. Doug Weller talk 19:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I think we got confused editing at the same time. I have reverted my edit as this is what I was trying to do as well. Andrewgprout (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Ah, I did think it was odd. Thanks for the explanation. Doug Weller  talk 19:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

== Hi

Hi
Exactly which one is this so I can fix this? I made multiple edits to the Frontier Airlines info on the RSW page because it was incorrect. Plz explain more so I can fix, U said it was removed... I don't see anything that I did removed?... Jetblue17 (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Re airport page
In fairness I will also remind you that edit warring isn't acceptable even if you are correct; I've warned the other user as well. Please discuss on the talk page, thanks. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Airport references
I will come here to resolve this. I am not sure why you are adamant on keeping in-text references to routes that have already started in Airport "Airlines and Destinations" infoboxes. I am not a fan of the third column reference either, but it is a decent compromise to having a bunch of in-text references (which make the article look junky and cluttered). You stated that "There is no agreement that this is a good idea." Well, most airport pages have that (outside of the major ones) have it, so I'm not quite sure what you are getting at there. Frankly, if you are insistent on keeping the in-text references on certain routes, then every destination should have one. Why put references on some and not others? Often times, I am removing references for routes that started a year or two ago.

I am not trying to be rude or anything here, I just want to get this resolved. Thank you! NBA2030 (talk) 02:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * simply you need to read and understand WP:V - WP:BURDEN is a good place to start. Your comment "(which make the article look junky and cluttered)" is not and can never be an excuse to delete references - it is completely against Wikipedia's core policies - whether you like or hate inline references that is how Wikipedia works and you are unlikely to change this.  The third column thing has been tried on a few pages as an experiment - no consensus on this as a sensible solution has been made, nor is it likely I suspect.  If you want to put a general reference for all the routes - after the airline name in column one of the table seems like an absolutely appropriate place for such references, but remember that the core policies of WP:RS and WP:OR need to be adheired to - it is not normally enough or particularly useful to add a reference to the opening page of the airline's website or timetable.  Nor does the existence of a general reference often replace the need for and nor is it an excuse to delete an existing still valid reference.  Andrewgprout (talk) 03:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, but the issue here is removing references for routes that have started. Most of the routes in the "airline and destinations" infobox do NOT have references, which would technically be in violation of WP:V - WP:BURDEN. If we are going by those standards, they need to be consistently applied, which means every single route listed needs a reference (which frankly, would be absurd). I do not see any reason why references are needed in an airports "airline and destination" infobox after a route has started. NBA2030 (talk) 04:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * There are two solutions to the problem you posit - 1. is to delete the tables completely because they are not verifiable or verifiable enough to be useful. They in reality are barely encyclopaedic as they are mostly WP:NOTDIRECTORY like in nature.   Directories need to be complete (ie WP:PRIMARY in nature where as an encyclopaedia is WP:TERTIARY in nature and needs to be a synthesis of the primary and secondary information. "If you have to continually keep it up-to-date it is probably not encyclopaedic"  Likewise if you can only provide Primary references (ie airline timetables) then the detail is also probably not encyclopaedic.   But assuming the tables are a good idea in Wikipedia option 2 is to scrupliously follow Wikipedia core policies. The way referencing tends to work is that if something is uncontroversial, (we know Paris is in France) we know (it is not unreasonable to know British Airways flies to New York) then a reference for this is probably not necessary or helpful as no one out there will disagree, now WP:V says that anything and everything must be verifiable - in destination table land and this is following the advice of WP:AIRPORTS I would err on the side of referencing potentially controversial edits as a matter of course and I would leave any references that are already there You have no idea why it was added nor should you care, they can only help, deleating them can only harm the encyclopaedia. Also remember that anything and everything that is not supported by a direct inline reference can be deleted and the only way you have to counter that deletion is to provide a valid WP:RS inline reference.  Andrewgprout (talk) 05:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Editing
You think my edit is spam? I provide a reliable source and add good material. I would edit exactly back my great edits. Because my edits are encyclopedic, helpful, and sourced. 2601:205:C100:627F:197:6998:824:7826 (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

your edit here   has no sources and really does not make alot of sense. If the content is significant enough for inclusion it needs to be rewritten in an encyclopaedic style rather than marketing speak. Andrewgprout (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I did not give a link where I got material. 2601:205:C100:627F:197:6998:824:7826 (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Jan 2018
So why didn't you just make a proper edit instead of just reverting, ongoing flights do not need references and you should know that you are an experience Wikipedia editer. Removing reference is just a cleanup to help make reading easier for editor. 33aircharter

Can you provide a reason or Wikipedia policy stating that references should be deleted when the material they are supporting is not? My guess is no. I started a discussion at WT:AIRPORTS surrounding my concerns about referencing. Feel free to give it a read. Garretka (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)(Talk page stalker)

WP:BURDEN

Oceania is a continent
As per the 7 continent policy!

It is the bio geographic term for th region.

Gun jack 5000 (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * What is the 7 continent policy? - The wording you changed is well established and intended to imply exactly what you say "It is the bio geographic term for th(sic) region." Andrewgprout (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it's a confusion with the "continent" Zealandia? Tayste (edits) 00:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

DHL
Hi Andrew,

I actually work with the DHL flight at CHC airport. They operates every Sunday to a scheduled arrival 0930 so not ad hoc or irregular and are flying to the end of March and may extend. So I have changed it to a seasonal service. Also regarding ref they are difficult to come by and are rarely used on cargo flight entries on wiki airport pages so are usually left in. If DHL decide not to come back next summer I will remove the entry accordingly.CHCBOY (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful if this [] included a christchurch stop. You have been around long enough to know that it is not what we know but what the references tell us we know that matters on Wikipedia.

Request for Participation at WT: Airports
As you may be aware, there was a recent discussion on the talk page of WP:Airports which prematurely and without consensus resulted in mass changes to airport articles throughout Wikipedia. Before a drastic change like this is put into practice, it is important to have clear consensus, which from my readings as an observer, did not occur. Many of these changes started to occur before any real discussion had taken place, and despite much disagreement from some community members. Disagreement is good -- it's great actually -- without it nothing would ever get done. But it's important that everyone opinions are heard fairly and accurately, and that significant changes like merging the Regional Airline destinations with the Mainline destinations are not done without such consensus. I encourage you, as someone involved in WP:Airports and the original discussion, to voice your opinions and discuss with others about how we should move forward at this point. Positive and constructive conversation is the way to a consensus. I also ask that everyone (myself included) ceases merging or un-merging mainline/regional destinations until a censuses is reached. Please contribute to the conversation here. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 04:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

ATR 72
Hello Andrewgprout, I think that i'm confused that when I edit Iran Aseman Airlines flight 3704 says that it has 65 people and when I go into the ATR 72 page it says 66. So which one is the correct one? ScienticGuy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea which is right but it is probably 65. The reference on the ATR article however says 66 and you can’t change that without finding a different probably more up to date or more reliable reference saying 65. Andrewgprout (talk) 07:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Paphos Airport
May i know why you have reverted my edits on Paphos airport without explanation? Thanks Wappy2008 (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

This was explained in the edit summary - so there was an explanation - Logos quite often differ from the established common name of an entity and justifying your change based on a logo is just not going to fly. Of note here is that the Wikipedia page for the airline where the WP:COMMONNAME is by definition established disagrees with you. Andrewgprout (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

According to moves of airlines all name has been completely changed on social media, on their website, their own livery as well as their call sign. Therefore Tus Air is flying under new name and using Tus Airways no more. Of the note what is written in WP:COMMONNAME

'' Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the criteria listed above. ''

Therefore TUS AIR is most commonly used name of the airline, due to that Tus Air should be in use. Wappy2008 (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

using google as a rule of thumb "tus air" = 33,400 results. "tus airways" = 170,000 results no real argument you can yet make regarding "tus air" and WP:COMMONNAME

I don't know at what Google you looking at but record that shows on English Google: About 40,500,000 results (0.41 seconds) for TUS AIR and About 411,000 results (0.37 seconds) for Tus Airways - just for your records. I think difference in amount proving a lot. Wappy2008 (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

All you are effectively doing in your search is counting the times the word air or airways appear in google - the " " marks are important to the search and create the search as a phrase which is what you actually want to count Andrewgprout (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Air New Zealand destinations
Thanks for your contribution to Air New Zealand destinations. Unfortunately, I had to revert it. The same change had previously been made by an IP user, and was reverted per WP:BRD. The next step if there is a content dispute, is to go to the article talk page, and discuss it there. Making the same change again a few hours later is not helpful; use the Talk page to discuss your concerns instead. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * while I did misinterpret the starting point of this revert cycle I'm not sure how BRD applies here, there are many times on Wikipedia where a revert is reverted by another in support of another editors edit particularly when that editor had taken the initiative to explain and canvas opinion on a talk page. The argument being made to support your edit is simplistic at best, however the result is of little consequence beyond the pedantic. The real question here is the format of the destination pages and indeed their very existence in an encyclopaedia.   Andrewgprout (talk) 05:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

YYC
I was going to say something about the reversion to YYC, given that there is already a reference column there, but it'd just be beating a dead horse based on what I see on this talk page. Your issue is with the acceptability of the airline's timetable as a reference, as opposed to one singular destination. Requiring me to cite specific cities defeats the purpose of the global reference for a given airline. -- Acefitt 23:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The reference in the reference column does not preclude the need for a specific reference for any piece of added information. That is the big danger in such general meaningless references. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not a single destination is properly sourced by your definition, so why have you not placed fv after every single city listed in the table aside from Denver, or you're just going to continue to pick and choose some arbitrary time after which every single city needs to be singularly cited? Your argument makes zero sense and holds no water in terms of consistency. -- Acefitt 02:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Constistency is not a goal in Wikipedia - WP:BURDEN is a core principle.
 * Burden's on me? Yeah. There's a source. Prove to me that the source used for every other seasonal destination is not OR. I have provided a source deemed not OR elsewhere. Consistency not being a goal favours my argument and not yours, as it's now a complete crapshoot. -- Acefitt 03:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy International Airport
The Operation section has been tagged for copyediting for several months, and the article was among the oldest in the backlog. The Guild of Copy Editors (of whom I'm a coordinator) is conducting its bimonthly backlog-reduction drive; I—and other copyeditors—remove the tag from a backlog article to help prevent two copyeditors from working on the same article. We're an honorable lot; please remember that you don't own the page.  Mini  apolis  19:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your explanation - I still think it would be better if you removed the tag after the copyediting - as it is impossible to tell what motives you had in doing so by your edit summary.  There must be a more appropriate way to prevent double up editing if indeed that is a problem.  And where did I indicate I owned the page? I'm a little confused by that comment.  Andrewgprout (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * With the edit summary "Rmv tag before copyedit", I declared my intention to copyedit the section. WP:DEADLINE. Since you reverted that edit minutes later (while I was carefully copyediting the section), it was pretty obvious that you were watching the page—hence the reference to WP:AGF in my ES for the copyedit.  Mini  apolis  20:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Whatever - not sure how watching a page equals owning it. And I still have serious concerns about the removal of tags before the copyedit. Andrewgprout (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Tenerife Airport Disaster
No offense, but I was just trying to specify the info box. If I do decide to edit it again, I’ll just say it was pilot error on the KLM plane ONLY as the airline did accept responsibility for the collision. Maybe you could give me an idea of what to say. Or I’ll just keep the box the same. Tigerdude9 (talk) 01:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It is my opinion that it is normally not particularly helpful to go into too much detail in the summary field - pilot error is a very blunt description covering a whole range of causes (you never seem to see mechanical failure in the same blunt way pilot error is often used) - it is better to discuss the normally rather complex sequence of events leading to the accident in the body of the article and simply leave the summary as a summary of the accident in as few words as possible. In this case "Runway collision" is ample.  Andrewgprout (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Tampa International Airport
I am getting a little concern with this article. This particular IP continues to remove references as in this edit: in which WN has launched service seasonal service to DTW and OMA. There was a also a "reference improve" tag to the section as it needed more citations for verification but since references keep getting removed, I have deleted the tag as it seems useless now. Can you take a look? Thanks. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Malacca International Airport
I am sorry, why did you move Melaka International Airport's page into Malacca International Airport page just because it is English wikipedia? Have you read the news that saying Melaka state government announced that they wanted us to use "Melaka" instead of "Malacca" in any languange? And they even specifically mentioned English, as English was formerly use Malacca not Melaka. They wanted all of media to stop write "Malacca" in their writings, but rather they want us to use "Melaka". AirEnthusiast (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME is probably the best place to start Andrewgprout (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits
You appear to have a long history of making unconstructive edits. Your understanding of the Wikipedia policies appears to be slightly misguided. The references that you insist are listed on the Glasgow Airport page are not neessary and only clutter the information provided. Please refrain from reverting edits made to correct this. Pf05268727 (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain to me how references are not necessary - have you read WP:BURDEN which is a core Wikipedia policy and not negotiable. References are never "NOT ever" considered clutter on Wikipedia.  Andrewgprout (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Andrewgprout I suggest you read WP:OVERCITE. You have added a reference for KLM, which has been on the Glasgow Airport page for years without a reference as it does not need one! It is by no means necessary. By your logic, every destination listed should be referenced. The Frankfurt route is is also well known and by no means negotiable so a reference is not required there either. Pf05268727 (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * : You can only overcite something if it is cited in the first place. And to quote from WP:OVERCITE "Wikipedia requires material to be verifiable. This means being able to add some form of inline citations to support anything added to an article, and actually adding a citation for anything challenged or likely to be challenged."  The reference has been there for some time (it was reinstated by me NOT created by me) how do you know that this citation has not been challenged? It is not a valid thing to go about deleting references because of some misconstrued tidiness.  Andrewgprout (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Andrewgprout Unfortunately you seem to be proving my point further. Take notice of "anything challenged or likely to be challenged". No one is going to challenge that KLM serve Amsterdam from Glasgow! My point is, why don't you then require a reference for all the routes listed? Also, the reference has not been there that long! Looking back through your talk page suggests this is something you do often - why? Pf05268727 (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Air New Zealand Flight 901
Ok, I shouldn’t have reverted. I should have just copied and pasted stuff from the old version into the current version. I’ll do that instead next time. Sorry about that. However, articles on plane clashes that have no survivors usually have an “(all)”. I do respect your opinion, but please respect mine as well.Tigerdude9 (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Revert edit Norfolk Island Airport
You reverted my edit for charter flights from Auckland to Norfolk Island Airport. I do not want to be involved in an edit war, however these flights were marked as 'charter' not 'scheduled' as per the reference directly from airchathams.co.nz I will be reverting this inclusion unless you can give a true reason why they should not be included

WP:AIRPORTS content says "Do not include ad-hoc, irregular, or private charter services" - Wikipedia is also WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOT DIRECTORY both of these principles are designed to keep the content of the encyclopedia encyclopaedic,  It is clear that something you add and then have to remove in a couple of weeks because it has finished is Directory type information. Ironically the interest Chathams is showing in Norfolk routes is almost certainly encyclopaedic. If you write a couple of sentences (properly referenced) about Air NZ pulling out, the failed local airline and how the current charters may lead to a more significant scheduled service I'm sure no-one will revert. The destinations table with raw unsynthesised data is not the place to present this information. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Mealer2015
Recently, this user continue to prematurely remove dates for new services that are starting June 7, 2018. I reverted him saying that it is not June 7th yet but he reverted me stating that it doesn’t matter, services are starting this week. Can you please take a look? 97.85.118.142 (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have an issue, tell it to me directly. Why does it matter when they are removed as I only do them within a few days of it starting? Mealer2015 (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk page blanking
Did you remove talk page comments? While it is sometimes acceptable (in cases of the addition of blatant abuse, revealing of private info or garbled nonsense) to remove messages from talk pages, generally speaking as a matter of courtesy and assumption of good faith, we should not delete another editor’s comments from a talk page. In cases where the talk page is being used as a forum for extended discussion not related to article improvement, closing the discussion using ‘’hat and hab’’ templates is preferred. Edaham (talk) 22:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Did I? - a diff would be useful? Andrewgprout (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I think so, possibly. It doesn’t matter. I can’t fully remember but it might have been related to a recent ani. Maybe I got the wrong person. Happy editing and a have a nice weekend. ～···

Incheon International Airport
In order to remove the citation needed tag I added a citation. While I specifically stated that the site does not allow direct linking, the citation is useful as I give the site, the name of the article, and the language the site is given; all necessary information for finding the information on the site and a slew of other useful information on this project and others. Why did you rollback not only that edit but four other unrelated edits in that section? ₪Rick n Asia₪ 01:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Allegiant In Milwaukee
Hello, I have written this to inform you about my "Allegiant In Milwaukee" dispute. There are many reasons to believe that AZA, SFB, and PGD, are seasonal services. I would recommend you check the sources given and actually do a deep dive before starting an online dispute. This would show you that the reference "allegiant.com" would show you that these services are actually seasonal! If you do believe that this route is seasonal, and you just believe the references need to be changed, there is no reference that CLEARLY states that they are seasonal. "allegiant.com" would be the best reference after that. If you do believe that "allegiant.com" is not a good source, please go find one yourself. If you are ever in this situation again, please do a deep dive as I did say. I would like to say, if this did cause you hard feelings, that was never intended. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattAviation (talk • contribs) 21:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Your reversion on 2018 Horizon Air Q400 incident
Hello! I see that you reverted three of my edits on 2018 Horizon Air Q400 incident, citing that they were unexplained. I explained the reason behind each edit in their edit summary, including links to respective policies and template descriptions. What portion of the edit(s) did you find a problem with? -- HunterM267  talk 20:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Really?
''Re: You know very very well that the burden to support your edits with sensible secondary references rests on YOU - not anyone else. If you cannot do such a simple thing you should not be editing.''

And if you cannot stop selectively enforcing the "rules", you shouldn't be editing either. As I and others have pointed out, if we are going to take a hypertechnical view of WP:BURDEN, every single destination on every table needs a citation. Until you do that, you are being a hypocrite. I wasn't able to add a citation there and then because I was on my mobile phone and it is difficult to edit on there. I figured I'd just fix what I could now and wait to add the citations until I got to an actual computer. You were more than capable of fixing the "issue" and yet, you chose not to and simply reverted without adding anything constructive (when you knew darn well Sun Country added Nashville). I got a bit snarky because I'm sick of your condescending attitude towards users. Knock it off. NBA2030 (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

we have had this discussion before and note I did not say then or ever what you say I say. And I am unapologetic for my stance.....

copied from above


 * @NBA2030: There are two solutions to the problem you posit - 1. is to delete the tables completely because they are not verifiable or verifiable enough to be useful. They in reality are barely encyclopaedic as they are mostly WP:NOTDIRECTORY like in nature. Directories need to be complete (ie WP:PRIMARY in nature where as an encyclopaedia is WP:TERTIARY in nature and needs to be a synthesis of the primary and secondary information. "If you have to continually keep it up-to-date it is probably not encyclopaedic" Likewise if you can only provide Primary references (ie airline timetables) then the detail is also probably not encyclopaedic. But assuming the tables are a good idea in Wikipedia option 2 is to scrupliously follow Wikipedia core policies. The way referencing tends to work is that if something is uncontroversial, (we know Paris is in France) we know (it is not unreasonable to know British Airways flies to New York) then a reference for this is probably not necessary or helpful as no one out there will disagree, now WP:V says that anything and everything must be verifiable - in destination table land and this is following the advice of WP:AIRPORTS I would err on the side of referencing potentially controversial edits as a matter of course and I would leave any references that are already there You have no idea why it was added nor should you care, they can only help, deleating them can only harm the encyclopaedia. Also remember that anything and everything that is not supported by a direct inline reference can be deleted and the only way you have to counter that deletion is to provide a valid WP:RS inline reference. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Andrewgprout (talk) 05:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Airport References and Other Things
So, when it comes to airport charts, once a route starts, the reference can be removed unless it is not at an airport chart with side references. If it has side references, the reference can be removed as the reference for that route can go to the side reference. Also, I would not recommend calling me "out of line" and saying that I can get blocked for my actions. I have seen through your talk page that you have been blocked multiple times. Maybe we are both out of line! Well anyway, this situation that I and you are in has happened multiple times as I can see. I shall not let it bother me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattAviation (talk • contribs) 00:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * - I have not been blocked multiple times that is simply not true and I expect a retraction and apology forthwith. And where did you get the idea that once a route has started you can remove the reference that is just simply not true - most of what you have said above is just made up. As I have already said please read and truly understand WP:V and in particular WP:BURDEN and understanding of the tertiary nature of Wikipedia the WP:Primary nature of Timetable references.  Put simply often the general timetable (it does not matter whether it is explicitly referenced or not) can not be used to support detail in these tables - often because the timetables are not really designed to explicitly point such detail out and deriving such information is WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR.  What you are striving for is WP:SECONDARY references for detail in these tables.  And once such references are applied to a route there is no mechanism to delete them except if the detail ceases to exist.Andrewgprout (talk) 00:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Qantas JFK
Hi Andrew, I noticed that there seems to be a bit of confusion regarding Qantas's listing in the JFK page.

For the time being, I have omitted both BNE and SYD and redirected viewers to a note below the table. However, it is not true that the B747 aircraft from JFK-LAX continues to SYD. LAX-SYD is consistently scheduled on the A380 and has been for years. The A380 never flies JFK-LAX. You are right that the flight number QF12 is in fact JFK-LAX-SYD, but per Wikipedia policy, a destination must have the same flight number & same aircraft on all segments to be listed in the destinations table. Under this, neither BNE nor SYD should be listed.

I have historically included BNE since psychologically speaking, same aircraft routes are much more seamless than same flight number routes. There are cases where LAX-SYD takes off before a delayed JFK-LAX lands. However, a delay in JFK-LAX always affects the LAX-BNE flight.

Additionally, JFK-LAX-BNE will become B789 on September 1, per []. Irehdna (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I can't fault you on the accuracy of your solution. I'm not sure I like the note but it does sort of work. I think my view is that I would probably prefer the whole entry not to be there but that has been tried before and failed. If I had to choose flight number or aeroplane as the entry to choose I would on balance choose flight number but its not an overwhelming preference. In dealing with entries like this we need to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a directory and much of the detail like this is very very directory like. The encyclopedic need being covered by these tables is that the airport page in question should present an idea of the connections to and from the airport, there is no requirement for these to be particularly and pedantically comprehensive or up-to-date, however JFKs only link with Australia is probably important in this regard which suggests why despite its scope problems it has been retained so far. Andrewgprout (talk) 01:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

American to Glasgow
Please note to avoid any confusion that the addition of an ending date for AA's flights to Glasgow by someone is correct. The service has been seasonal for a while and now will be cancelled entirely which is clearly stated in the chart on the right in the given official source as seasonal service which is being removed from the schedule. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.174.23.207 (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Your reverts to American Airlines
Hello,

I noticed that you reverted my edits on American Airlines where I explained that planes without seat-back TVs have overhead TVs. It is not promotional and goes well with the previous sentence explaining seat-back TVs. You also reverted my edit where I said that the 737-800s had seat-back TVs. I just flew yesterday on an AA 737-800 and it had seat-back TVs. Please give reasoning into why you reverted. AmericanAir88(talk) 14:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Mostly because such talk is really boring and not really encyclopaedic. You need to have a reference for it as well.  Your username leads people to think what you write on a page bearing the same name might be more promotional in nature than perhaps you mean it to be. Andrewgprout (talk) 07:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Navaids in aerodrome articles
Sincere thanks for supporting my case in Mfuwe Airport! Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Blown out of plane
Hi there. I notice you reverted my correction of an event that was altered to state that a person was blown out of a plane rather than sucked. You state that in decompression it's definitely sucked. While it's a common myth that you get sucked out of a plane, this isn't what is happening, especially in decompression. Decompression of a plane results in the high pressure inside the plane seeking to evacuate by any means possible, i.e. through the window. There is no external force pulling the air out, but purely the higher pressure inside escaping. Hence blown rather than sucked.

Yes sucked is what is commonly used in news sources, but it's totally inaccurate (and technically in physics there is no such thing as suction it's a completely made up term that implies something other than what is actually happening.) High pressure moves to low pressure by virtue of the force exerted by the high pressure, the low pressure has no say or operation in this. This is how the physics works. Canterbury Tail talk 14:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * mmmmm, I think you are probably being a bit pedantic about this Wikipedia is not the place for extremely technical definitions. The difference between blow and suck is about where the energy or the causing event is coming from.  In a decompression the cause is in the direction you are travelling to - ie sucked.  Think of straws, and the difference between implosion and explosion if that helps.  This is certainly the common interpretation of the difference.  In this case there is some indication that the flight attendant actually blocked the growing hole or was sucked out in the early stages of the incident which if confirmed would further support my sucked hypothesis.  Anyway the official report uses the word "swept" possibly to avoid such a discussion as we are having here - i would be entirely happy with this word in this instance.  Andrewgprout (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ejected is also commonly used so that's a fairly neutral term. Swept would also be fine. I know sucked is what is used in newspapers, but it drives all us us in aviation insane. Just like every accident involving a light aircraft seems to involve a Cessna regardless of make. Canterbury Tail talk 19:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * 1.3 with object and adverbial of direction Draw in a specified direction by creating a vacuum.

‘he was sucked under the surface of the river’ - just say'n. English is not a precise tool. Andrewgprout (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes but suction implies pulling which is not the force that is happening here. Scientists have been fighting back for years (to no seeming avail) against such incorrectness. Popular parlance is no substitute for accuracy and remember we are an encyclopaedia. It's not a purely technical thing, it's a fundamental misunderstanding of what is happening that appears to have settled into popular consciousness and is proving difficult to shift. It's like saying things fall to the ground because air pressure pushes them down not the gravity of the planet pulling it. It leads people believing forces are being exerted in a manner that is actually the opposite of what is happening, it's a fundamental science issue that once you draw the forces makes it clear that that's not what's happening as people think there is a pulling force when in fact it's a pushing force going on here in an airplane. This is why educational institutions and scientific organisations trying to educate the public against incorrect scientific belief and inaccuracy is so difficult. I'm not going to fight on it however in the spirit of BRD, I agree that it's the belief of the majority of the population and what news sources state (though not actual reports on incidents etc.) Canterbury Tail talk 11:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Reverting changes to King Fahd International Airport
I recently made changes to passenger routes for King Fahd International Airport. These changes are based on search made using OAG's Flight Tools. OAG is a leading schedules provider. All additions, removals, and amendments are based on this source. You objected to removing referenced material. However, what I removed are old references which either are non-valid according to the recent search I made on OAG, or they just speak about the start of the service but not its continuity. Continuity is verified through the OAG tools. Hence, all the material that I amended goes back to the same source. Outdated references are superseded by such source. If we were to keep all references on the route table, it will become full of references, many of which may not valid. You have to understand how the airline industry works, as I understand it as a professional, in order to appreciate what I'm saying and doing. I hope you bring back my edits for the benefit of all those who want accurate information about the airport's operations. Imdashti (talk) 06:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018
MilborneOne just talked about callsigns to me. They have to be uppercase as most pages have them. It is really neccesary as shown. If you continue this disruptive editing, you will be blocked soon.


 * Please read MOS:ALLCAPS and WP:AGF. And I can not find any evidence user MilborneOne has such a view, there is no answer to your question on his talk page. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Callsigns have always been shown as upper case in wikipedia to reflect usage by the reliable sources like the FAA and Eurocontrol. So the IP is not doing any wrong as I see it. I have removed the warning above as it is clearly not appropriate to warn an experience editor on something that probably just needs discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 08:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

thanks for your reply. I'm unsure why MOS:ALLCAPS should not apply here. While WP:PRIMARY sources list such callsigns as uppercase, verifiability is about content not style. I would be more interested in what secondary references say. I cannot see what is being gained by making the entry (eg. SPEEDBIRD vs Speedbird, SPRINGBOK vs Springbok), entries which is much harder to read thanks  :-) Andrewgprout (talk) 00:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I dont have a problem with you questioning the format, but if it was to change it would be nearly all airline articles that would have to be amended, which is just over 4000 at the moment, so I would suggest it would have to be raised at the airline project to see what others think, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Tenerife Aiport Disaster
I was just trying to make the summary more specific as "runway collision" doesn't sound specific enough. However, why did you say "detailed cause of appropriate for summary?" Did you want me to give a better edit summary? Or did you mean to say "detailed cause of inappropriate for summary?" If it was inappropriate, then I apologize. Tigerdude9 (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)