User talk:Wibwob28

Welcome!

Hello, Wibwob28! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages.

Getting Started Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Discord server • IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions

For info - I've been trying to get that IP to look at their talk page and communicate for the last two days. I had intended to restore the cite - albeit with a run through ReFill or Citation Bot... but I guess you'll do that now. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:04, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wibwob28 since you seem so determined to “warn” me on my talk page, how about you start looking at your own talk page once in a blue moon, where this has sat for the last 3 hours?

And as for the thing you’re “warning” me about… how about you look at the page history first. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 22:24, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wibwob28 for the last and final time - this is where the discussion is. Ignoring your own talk page is bad form. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 22:39, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to the following policy document - please read it carefully. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ACiting_sources Wibwob28 (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a miracle - they can look at their own talk page!

Mate, I’m well aware of how citing sources work - I’ve been here for over a decade. Stop behaving like you know it all. If you had even bothered to look at the page history, you’ll notice that I self-reverted myself instantly. The purpose of these edits is to get the IP to look up from what they’re doing and look at their talk page - communication is mandatory, and right now they’re not doing it. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 22:45, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In fact if you look again? You’ll even see that I followed up with a Citation Bot run to fix the useless bare URLs and turn them into proper citations.

Now tell me again - what’s your complaint? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 22:46, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing in wikipedia policy requiring that I follow your orders. If you believe I have broken wikipedia policy, please quote the policy exactly. Otherwise, please leave me alone. Wibwob28 (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Please leave me alone" is rather ironic from the person that spent the last few hours spamming my talk page - but I have no problem whatsoever doing so. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 23:29, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess not... I guess I'll have to clean up after everyone.

Hello! Thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia, and in particular for adding references! However, adding a bare URL is not ideal, and exposes the reference to link rot. It is preferable to use proper citation templates when citing sources, including details such as title, author, date, and any other information necessary for a bibliographic citation. Here's an example of a full citation using the {{cite web}} template to cite a web page:

Lorem ipsum<ref>{{cite web |title=Download the Scanning Software - Windows and Mac |publisher=Canon Inc |work=Ask a Question |date=2022 |url=https://support.usa.canon.com/kb/index?page=content&id=ART174839 |access-date=2022-04-02}}</ref> dolor sit amet.

which displays inline in the running text of the article as:

Lorem ipsum^[1] dolor sit amet.

and displays under References as:

1. ^ Download the Scanning Software - Windows and Mac". Ask a Question. Canon Inc. 2022. Retrieved 2022-04-02.

If you've already added one or more bare URLs to an article, there are tools available to expand them into full citations: try the Citer tool, or in the wikitext editor, try the reFill tool, and in the Visual Editor, the reference dialog can convert some bare urls into a full citation. Once again, thanks for adding references to articles. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:09, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wibwob28 still more bare URLs… please use full cites. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:25, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If an airline route is marked for termination soon - and will thus be deleted from wikipedia soon (along with the bare ref) then I'm not inclined to spend more time than absolutely necessary just to justify the deletion of something from wikipedia. If you're talking about my use of template references, then these are full citations. Wibwob28 (talk) 11:44, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm talking about adding bare URLs - there are tools like Citer (linked above) which generate full cites for you. Bare URLs are discouraged because they're subject to link rot, and aren't helpful to readers. Please avoid using them, especially when it's a matter of seconds to generate full citations. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:57, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's much easier to add a bare url and then get citation bot to do the work afterwards. Generally I do this. Wibwob28 (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except you’re not - I’ve had to clean up multiple pages with citation bot after your edits today… Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:20, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see anything on your contribution list today (as of 1227 23 Sept 2025 UTC time, where you've filled in a bare URL that I've added. Wibwob28 (talk) 12:28, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s because Citation Bot uses its own account for edits, with the editor that suggested it mentioned in the edit summary. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:31, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what, an example then. You added this bare URL on the 8th September, and it sat as a bare URL until 9 days later when it was removed because the route had ended. So you aren’t following up with Citation Bot - it takes seconds to use Citer, Refill or Cite Bot… please do so. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:40, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If a route is going to end in a little over a week... I really don't see any need to spend time polishing up a reference which itself should and will be deleted in a little over a week. I care about what's going to stay long term... not what will soon disappear. Wibwob28 (talk) 12:54, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because in the interim readers are still wanting to read the article, and they're presented with a bare URL which gives them absolutely zero information unless they click through to the link - no title, no date, no author, no website information… seriously - it's a matter of seconds to do citations properly. You've spent good time making those OAG templates, why are we adding lazy bare URLs elsewhere? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:56, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have limited time to devote to wikipedia (the certainty of death for all human beings gives a hard stop to the potential time I have available).... and we all have to prioritise in life as to which things are more important and which are less important and allocate time accordingly. If something will likely last long term, it's worth spending time to get it right. If it's about to disppear, it's far less worthy of spending time. Wibwob28 (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, so others have to tidy up after you. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:05, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eindhoven Airport

I am confused about your edit on Eindhoven Airport. This edit. Can you explain what happened there? The Banner talk 15:25, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The aim is to create generic templates instead of spelling everything out manually and repeatedly. The OAG World Timetable has the same ISSN every month for example - this is very unlikely to change and should be entered into Wikipedia once. The ISSN does not need to and should not be repeated explicitly on hundreds of wikipages. Wibwob28 (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. It just confused me. I am not convinced by that difficult accessible (as in, only accessible by visiting a library in person on the other side of the country) paper source anyway but see no reason to remove it. But better sources than that would certainly be nice, as the risk of the source becoming outdated quickly is massive. The Banner talk 15:39, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to apply WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR and all other wikipedia guidelines to the extreme and want references to cover virtually all statements in Airline/Destination tables on airport wikipages instead of citation-needed, then you are stuck with either Cirium or the OAG Worldwide Timetable.

Cirium is available as web access only.

OAG is available as both web access and paper copy.

The electronic versions of both Cirium and the OAG are extremely expensive and legally problematic - any subscriber has to sign clauses promising not to copy data elsewhere. Unlikely to be enforceable for a single route - but much greater risk when talking about thousands of routes. Use of the paper OAG needs only comply with standard copyright law.Wibwob28 (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I can not check that paper source, I just assume that the editor who added it did this in good faith and after checking the the actual source. And I am not applying WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT to the extreme, I am well aware that all editor are volunteers. So limiting my quest for independent sources to new connections and season/charter connections. The Banner talk 16:00, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charter flights are often NOT listed in the OAG, airport websites, airline websites, FlightRadar24 or many news sources. Being strict on sourcing of charter flights imposes a high, sometimes unpassable, barrier. Consider the question of purity of data versus completeness of data. Sometimes it may be better to be more forgiving around the source of a charter flight, particularly if also seasonal - it may well be better to have accurate content with a good-enough source instead of insisting on full compliance with all policies. As an analogy, one holds a footballer at the World Cup to much higher standard than somebody playing football for fun at the weekend. One typically needs to apply a standard appropriate to what can be reasonably achieved. Wibwob28 (talk) 16:10, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:AeroRoutesRef

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Template:AeroRoutesRef requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G15 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it exhibits one or more of the following signs which indicate that the page could only plausibly have been generated by large language models (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology) and would have been removed by any reasonable human review:

• Communication intended for the user: This may include collaborative communication (e.g., "Here is your Wikipedia article on..."), knowledge-cutoff disclaimers (e.g., "Up to my last training update ..."), self-insertion (e.g., "as a large language model"), and phrasal templates (e.g., "Smith was born on [Birth Date].")
• Implausible non-existent references: This may include external links that are dead on arrival, ISBNs with invalid checksums, and unresolvable DOIs. Since humans can make typos and links may suffer from link rot, a single example should not be considered definitive. Editors should use additional methods to verify whether a reference truly does not exist.
• Nonsensical citations: This may include citations of incorrect temporality (e.g a source from 2020 being cited for a 2022 event), DOIs that resolve to completely unrelated content (e.g., a paper on a beetle species being cited for a computer science article), and citations that attribute the wrong author or publication.

Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. Pages created using them that did not undergo human review may be deleted at any time.

If you think these signs were incorrectly identified and you assert that you did carefully check the content, 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 deleted 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. Additionally – if you would like to create an article but find creating new encyclopedia content yourself difficult, please share this with other editors at the Teahouse, and they may be able to help. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your legitimate contributions. ––KEmel49(📝,📋) 18:04, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edits you made did not have an edit summary. Collaboration among editors is fundamental to Wikipedia, and every edit should be explained by a clear edit summary, or by discussion on the talk page. Please use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit and/or to describe what it changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

or in the visual editor:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Describe what you changed

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. When logged in to your Wikipedia account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! 185.207.140.176 (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's not perfect, but my priority is to add large numbers of references to wikipedia to ensure content does not get deleted. I have limited time - and I prefer to add references to two pages and preserve content on two pages, instead of adding a single reference with an edit summary and preserve the content on just a single page. All I'mm doing is adding references - I'm making (almost) zero changed to non-reference information content. Wibwob28 (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Hurghada International Airport, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:15, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To quote WP:V: Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. To further quote WP:BURDEN: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You are the editor restoring content, therefore it is your responsibility to provide sources. If there are no sources, then the content doesn’t get restored - it’s as simple as that. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:17, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could take your time a little bit on this ? Put ^{[citation needed]} citation-needed tags where you think a source should be added... and give others some time to add the source. Just deleting large chunks of pages because nobody put in a source before isn't nice - this is what the ^{[citation needed]} or ^{[better source needed]} tags are there for. Wibwob28 (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those tags are a courtesy. They aren’t part of WP:V. They’ve been tried on other pages and they haven’t worked - indeed if you look at my contributions from the last two days, I’ve gone through multiple airport articles where those tags were present and I’ve cleaned them up.

If you feel those tags should be a mandatory part of the verifiability policy, then by all means suggest an alteration to the policy. But unless there’s a reliable source, content should not be on Wikipedia. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:22, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please be a little more patient. If somebody added content several years ago when citation rule were less strict, then it's harsh to suddenly impose rules and delete large chunks of content. Go gently and steadily... Wibwob28 (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn’t matter when content was added. WP:V is current Wikipedia policy. It’s not a guideline, it’s not optional - it’s policy. Unless content has a source, do not add it to articles. At this point you’ve twice added unsourced content to articles - stop please unless you have the required sources. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:28, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Hurghada International Airport, you may be blocked from editing. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:26, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the need to meet verifiability standards (WP:V, WP:BURDEN), and I agree that unsourced material should be improved. However, I believe some of the removed content was plausible, long-standing, and could be cited. Per WP:PRESERVE, I’d like to restore selectively with ^{[citation needed]} tags and work on finding citations. Let’s discuss here before continuing removals/reverts. Wibwob28 (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I’m sorry but I disagree. I’ve tried that at other airport articles (such as Hong Kong), and it’s not been done. Two months on and the content is still sitting there without sources. The simple fact is the content should not be on Wikipedia at all until the sources have been found - so when sources are found, add the routes back then - not before. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:33, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently going through various pages trying to add references... but I can do this only if I can see on a page what needs to be referenced... and I also need time for this. See my recent edits earlier today. If you want references added, then please add citation-needed tags and I will try to get round to them. Otherwise, I won't be able to see what references need to be added. Please try to work with me. Wibwob28 (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What more needs to be said here? Content that doesn’t have a source doesn’t belong on Wikipedia. Perhaps if it was for a couple of minutes (restore content then immediately add sources) - but if it were any more than that then it shouldn’t be there, end of.

The removed content is still in the page history, so if there are pages that have had unsourced content removed the removed content will be highlighted in the diff. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:40, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on a per-airline basis, not on a per-airport basis. If you want references added, then pick a few airlines and tell me which ones are important to you. If you can't do this, then I'm not going to be able to help you add the references you seek. Wibwob28 (talk) 14:46, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively you could copy a list of the removed routes into a subpage in your userspace, giving you a temporary personal list as it were Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:45, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've got limited time and the most efficient process I have time wise is to work by airline. Nominate a couple of airlines, tell me which they are, and I can work with you. If you insist on my working with the history, then I'm afraid there's nothing I can do to help. Wibwob28 (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on List of Loganair destinations

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of Loganair destinations, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing

Note you do not need to reference every single item in a section when it's all using the same reference, you can just use a reference at the section level to reference it all. Also note that WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT has no say in the matter. It is a Wikiproject which is solely a grouping of like minded editors, it can make some suggestions but Wikiprojects have zero say and authority to determine the content of an article. Yes every entry needs to be referenced as standard good practice, but when they all have the same reference a section level reference covers that. Plus the Wikiproject doesn't speak against that anyway. As long as it's all referenced, it's fine. Canterbury Tail talk 11:59, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentally, I think you have a good point. In the past, I've put a single reference in the References column for a single airline and assumed people would be able to work with this. Other people seem to cite WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT and WP:BURDEN strictly and then wikilawyer anybody who disagrees with referencing every single route with WP:ANI and ultimately a lifetime ban from wikipedia - and the admins seem to support this. So I've taken the approach that I need to be particularly robust in referencing just to ensure the wikilawyers don't end up getting to delete large chunks of information under WP:BURDEN. Fundamentally it comes down to 2 choices - either put references everywhere and ensure that information is preserved on wikipedia - or expect somebody to cite WP:BURDEN and delete large amounts of information without notice and wikilawyering anybody else into a ban if they dare challenge this. Neither is a great option, but under WP:PRESERVE it seems better to keep information albeit with more references than to lose it entirely. Wibwob28 (talk) 12:07, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am an admin and the wikiproject has zero authority. Section level references for the items are perfectly fine, and anyone who insists otherwise is wrong. If members of the Wikiproject edit war against that, it will be dealt with as part of disruptive editing and edit warring. If a reference covers the entire section, it should be at the section level, not on every individual word. If people are edit warring against that, let me know. Canterbury Tail talk 12:10, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me a promise that you'll deal with it ? I don't particularly want to do spam everywhere - if only because it makes sections harder to read. and it takes more time for me to add multiple references than one - but my primary goal is that one person should not be able to trash large contents of wikipeedia and wikilawyer another person into submission. I've already seen editors in the last few days cite WP:BURDEN to delete large chunks of data - and threaten to wikilawyer me into a wikipedia ban because I revert their mass deletion and ask them to use citation-needed and better-source-needed tags to give people time to add references instead. Wibwob28 (talk) 12:24, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is a serious problem with airport articles, detination lists and airline fleets that more and more admins are starting to look into. Canterbury Tail talk 12:30, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You want to have a look at the following 2 edits - if you could encourage other editors to use citation-needed or better-source-needed tags first instead of citing WP:BURDEN to delete without warning, I'd be grateful. I don't particularly want to spam references everywhere - but the admin responses on WP:ANI haven't exactly been encouraging in the past. Think of it as a bit like somebody trying to rob you of money in the streets and the police saying they can't do anything to the thief because prosecution would breach their human rights - it rather encourages a vigilante approach to defending yourself and discourages other people (or wiki-contributors) from being in the area:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Princess_Juliana_International_Airport&diff=1313290140&oldid=1313288077

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hurghada_International_Airport&diff=1313313144&oldid=1313311671 Wibwob28 (talk) 12:36, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again.

I’ve explained before that WP:V allows the removal of any content which is unsourced or where the verifiability is challenged. The content that was removed was unsourced and, as far as I could see, wasn’t being improved in a hurry. This is nothing to do with Airport Content or the WikiProject (which I’m not a part of). And if you’re so insistent on the mandatory application of Citation Needed tags, perhaps show me in the policy where they’re mentioned as mandatory?

Indeed if you have a look at the discussion at Hong Kong International Airport, they’re also seen as disruptive… and in the end the decision was taken to strip out the unsourced content regardless. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:04, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve no intention of edit warring or disputing this approach - I do have a couple of concerns though which are worth discussing.

The way these destination lists are edited, users regularly add or remove routes which are unsourced. You yourself know how much of a problem the unsourced content is. Now if the verifying reference for an entire airline is at the airline level, how is one to determine which of the routes in the list is sourced and which one isn’t, save for digging through the page history? If each individual route is sourced, as most currently are, then it’s instantly obvious what is and what isn’t sourced. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:07, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to have a discussion with CanteburyTail on this. I can see both sides of the debate... but right now I'm stuck between two sides. There's an admin telling me to use a section-level reference and reverting my inidividual edits... and you telling me that a section-level reference is not possible. All I really care about is preserving what is fundamentally good content - and ensuring it's not deleted via whatever references are needed. Talk to CanteburyTail - please get a clear compromise between the two of you. Wibwob28 (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well that’s why I’m replying here - CanterburyTail is in the discussion, so they’ll reply here. As a general rule if a discussion is taking place, it’s best not to splinter the discussion. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:15, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care where the discussion takes place - I just want a consistent guideline which everyone will respect instead of wikilawyering, vigilantes and edit-reversions. Wibwob28 (talk) 13:17, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, that’s exactly why I’m discussing it - so that a consensus can be had, concerns can be addressed, and there’s no edit warring. I’m not sure why I’m NOT talking to CanterburyTail - indeed it’s his comment I’m replying to. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:19, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The items are referenced. Individual items don't need to be referenced if there is a reference covering them at the section level. There's such a think as refspam. If there is a reference at a section level it covers the section. Items just need to be referenced, they don't need specific references against every part. In fact it's just refspam to use the same reference 100 times. WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT is a Wikiproject not a project wide consensus on anything (and it doesn't say the items need to be specifically referenced individually, just referenced.) Canterbury Tail talk 13:30, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So let's say a section has a reference added which covers the section. That, even to me, makes perfect sense and I'm in support of it. Then a few months later, a new route is created which isn't covered by the overall reference, so an inline cite is added for that route. That's when confusion starts, as some are covered by the "overall" ref and one by an inline cite. Even more confusingly, some people then start adding unsourced routes which look identical to the routes covered by the overall ref… that's when it gets difficult to maintain verifiability Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:40, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hear ya, but this is how referencing should be done. If it's new, and not covered by the overall reference, then it should be referenced. However one thing many are missing, airline destinations aren't controversial claims as they're easy to verify if active, and therefore don't actually require full down to the destination referencing as a result. It's the future routes that are the issue, and we're not a crystal ball and half of them never materialise, so I think they should be excluded. Mind you overall this edit warring nonsense over destination tables in airports, which is a highly changeable dataset, is in my belief not what Wikipedia is for. We're not a directory, we shouldn't have them, especially on airports as airports don't have destinations, only aircraft and airlines. Canterbury Tail talk 15:12, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I'd agree… I've just not been bold enough to deviate that far from the established style.

Could I perhaps ask a favour? I'm guessing the best course of action would be a rather broad RfC… but I'm afraid I've not got any experience in that process… what would be your advice? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:21, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And just to clarify, I don't know much if anything about Airport Content - I'm simply following WP:V, not any wikiproject-level consensuses. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:41, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries with repetitive and non-applicable shortcuts

Regarding your edit summaries, it may be best to cut down on the various links as in here. "Reference added as backfill to prevent data deletion underWP:V, WP:VERIFY, WP:BURDEN, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT and WP:DUE" is a somewhat nonsensical summary. The first two shortcuts are the same page, others have similar redundancies (RS and NOR), and some seem not at all relevant (NPOV and AIRPORT-CONTENT). It would likely be clearer to write something like "Adding reference to flight route", or if you want "Adding OAG world reference for flight route", or some similar variation. CMD (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's long - but there's plenty of editors that want to delete info without references (and they don't care about WP:PRESERVE - they will just happily cite WP:BURDEN and delete anything and everything they don't like immediately and never mind adding citation-needed tags) and there's also plenty of editor who want to delete references because they see them as unnecessary. So I have to ensure that I keep both groups of people happy, with justification for everything to ensure we end up keeping long-term content on wikipedia. Sad, I know, but I have to work with the culture of wikipedia as it is, rather than what the culture of wikipedia was 15 years ago. Wibwob28 (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add - the point about looking at a paper copy of the source in a public library and that it was after content had already been added to wikipedia prior to consultation of the paper source is also necessary in this environment... Again, rather sad, but a bit of a fact of life. Wibwob28 (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The culture of Wikipedia is not particularly encouraging of using an alphabet soup of policies. Referencing politics/guidelines poorly (or the same thing twice) is not going to make any group happy. To the contrary, it likely detracts. A simple statement, as I suggest above, would achieve the same without flooding watchlists with meaningless strings of capital letters. CMD (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen enough wikilawyers drag me (under a previous login) to WP:ANI citing endless alphabet soup of policies for the most minor things that they don't like. I've walked away from wikipedia utterly despondent more than once, despondent at how admins and WMF do almost nothing in practice (I don't care about lofty ideals and theory - I care about what actually happens) to defend the culture of building an online encyclopedia against aggressive wikilawyers. I came to wikipedia to create an online encyclopedia and to help ensure knowledge is easily available to everyone without paywalls or other barriers - and I intend to defend this ideal.

Yes, 90% of wiki-editors are well-meaning... but there's enough really aggressive and very knowledgeable wikilawyers out there who will play dirty. So I have to defend myself. If you know that there are a significant number of people walking around your home town carrying a knife and who will happily stab a random person for fun... then the rational thing to do is to wear a Kevlar stab-resistant vest. I don't want to carry a knife on me... but I also don't want somebody stabbing me when I walk to the supermarket either. Wibwob28 (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to join in the request here to calm down with the edit summaries - the work you're doing is excellent, but the edit summaries are simply pointless and fill up watchlists. All you have to say is "add sources" - that's literally it. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:30, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors have made known that they consider the references unnecessary and prefer to remove the references. So there needs to be clear justification to create the reference and ensure it sticks. Unlike you, other people don't think that WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT applies, or that WP:BURDEN can be used to remove content from wikipedia without notice - so I need to explain to them why I'm adding the reference. Wibwob28 (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What editors have said they want to remove references?? None of the discussions that I've been involved with with yourself has included any such discussion. The discussions have been about removing content that have no sources, which is what you're combatting right now by adding said sources. Any editor removing sources like yours would likely see themselves get reverted.

I ask again - please stop adding the pointless wikilinks and cut down the edit summaries. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:43, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People have removed references in the past - I've seen it happen enough times. User CMD seems to think WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT doesn't apply - while you've made clear that you think it does. So it's important to educate other users as to how important WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT is. The edit summary exists not only to say what has been changed, but also, more importantly, to say *why* the edit was done - this avoids other editors potentially reverting changes, or having to spend time going back-and-forth asking me why I made a particular change. The guidelines explicitly say "Be helpful: explain your changes. When you edit an article, the more radical or controversial the change, the greater the need to explain it." Wibwob28 (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For heaven's sake, where have I even mentioned WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT? What you're doing is adding sources, plain and simple. For the last and final time - there's no need for a stupidly long edit summary littered with irrelevant wikilinks. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:04, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've deleted sourced content before... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manchester_Airport&diff=1313166312&oldid=1313166157 Wibwob28 (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was a revert of a user adding back a plethora of unsourced content. If you take more than 30 seconds, you'll notice that I added the sourced content back afterwards. Now that that's out the way, can we get back to talking about your edit summaries? Just stop. Seriously. Just stop. All you need is "adding sources" - that is literally it. It explains what you're doing, and it's obvious why you're doing it. I don't see what all this fuss is about - two editors have raised a concern with your editing, but instead of taking it to heart you're arguing semantics... Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:21, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just want content to stick, not be deleted at random by people citing WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT or WP:BURDEN, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:DUE or any other guideleine. On the one hand, there are people who are using guidelines to justify deletion, and on the other, there are people who think that all the referncing is unnecessary and think it's fine to just use an airline or airport website to verify the data... so I've trying to answer to both viewpoints. It's almost important for legal reasons to communicate that the reference is being added post hoc and that I'm not trying to break intellectual property law in various jurisdictions. Wibwob28 (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a thought - if you don't want content deleted by people correctly citing WP:V, keep doing what you're doing by adding sources. I've already said twice in this very discussion that you're doing sterling work adding these sources, and it is preventing content being removed. We're not asking you to stop this - we're asking you to cut down the unnecessarily long edit summaries. That's it. You do have to realise though that removing content that's unsourced is valid and permitted, and unless sources are added (which is what you're doing) that's not going to stop.

So for the last time - keep adding the sources. But cut down the edit summaries. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:28, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to continue citing wiki-policy to remove content... then I have to make extra sure that people don't delete references because they don't see why you're being so direct on things like WP:BURDEN or WP:V. If I add references, and people remove them shortly afterwards... what happens next ? All I'm trying to do is explain why the reference is necessary, valid to add and doesn't breach intellectual property law. Wibwob28 (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has already gone beyond ridiculous. This is a discussion about the edit summary you're using - not about the edits you're making. For the last time - your edits are good by adding references. Keep doing them. You do not need those huge edit summaries. That's all that needs saying.

If someone removes your references, then you discuss it at the article talk page. It's that simple. Now do Wikipedia a favour and stop with the huge edit summaries. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:35, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And you've definitely used WP:V and WP:BURDEN to delete substantial content multiple times without warning with a threat of WP:3RR when I've tried to bring the content back. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Princess_Juliana_International_Airport&diff=1313290140&oldid=1313288077, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Princess_Juliana_International_Airport&diff=1313317341&oldid=1313315975, Wibwob28 (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is this, an inquisition?

Cut. Down. Your. Edit. Summaries.

That's all we're asking. Danners430 _{tweaks made} Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:25, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All I want is for existing content to remain in place, and not be deleted at random without warning or people to spray citation-needed or better-source-needed tags all over the place. You're not the only one to do this - see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Southampton_Airport&diff=prev&oldid=1314471096

The legalities around intellectual property law must also be respected and also demonstrably be explained so an admin doesn't think I'm breaching various copyright and similiar laws. Wibwob28 (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous.

If all you want is to prevent content being deleted, then continue adding those sources.

We don't want you to stop adding those sources- we want you to stop with the stupid long edit summaries. There is zero problem with legality as you're not breaking copyright by referencing content. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:34, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On matters of legality, I prefer the advice of other people if they are qualified lawyers with a licence to practice in the relevant jurisdiction. I tend to take legal advice from other people, especially those I've never met in person, with a bit more uncertainty. Wibwob28 (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suits us. Just be careful when talking about legality - WP:LEGAL. It does absolutely nothing to change our issue though of your edit summaries.

That's the last message I'm going to write on this topic, as it's obvious you don't want to consider requests from other editors. I'm done here. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:57, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article)) for edit warring.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Star Mississippi 14:32, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]