User talk:VenFlyer98

Sources and start dates

Please do not remove source of a connection when that has started. It still source the connection itself. The Banner talk 20:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for that. I usually leave the sources. However, the route is covered by the main ref in the third coloumn. VenFlyer98 (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Air France Denver flight

The IP failed to add a source saying the flight is year round and left it as it is and deleted my message at his talk page. He said to it up on google flights. Jz0610 (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jz0610:

Just noticed it, I reverted initially since it wasn't changed on the CDG page, but I do see it's available year-round. Thanks for the fix. VenFlyer98 (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

US Air Carriers

We do not list options for US air carriers. Firm orders only. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@RickyCourtney:

Ricky, not sure where this consensus comes from. WP:ALFC states "Orders are for new aircraft only, other aircraft to be acquired second-hand or leased should be mentioned in the Notes." New orders only in the tables, but mentioning information about leases or options is fine if it's in the notes column.

(VenFlyer98 (talk) 05:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC))

DL seasonal suspensions

The source I linked clearly says "seasonal suspensions". Don't know why you reverted all of them. Temporary or otherwise, the routes are no longer operated year round, and should be listed under "seasonal", according to WP:AIRPORTS page content section. Also, whether the suspension is for 2 months or the full 5 months of winter, it doesn't matter. The main point is, it's no longer served year round, and should be indicated as such.

Thenoflyzone (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Thenoflyzone:

I understand that, but Delta typically makes flights seasonal by suspending flights entire seasons (ex. entirety of winter/summer). These are temporary for only 2 or so months, which could be for a variety of reasons. The source states seasonal, but that just seems to be a choice by the post and not actual a shift to seasonal for these routes. These are the types of suspensions that usually resume their normal schedules the following season (again due to the temporary nature of the suspensions) so they'd be listed as seasonal only to move them back the following year. Aeroroutes typically uses the "seasonal" wording for any suspension. For example, they just posted a new post about American where they write "seasonal suspension" for some routes only getting suspended for 2-3 weeks. That's not really seasonal, is it? Same is true for the Delta suspensions, they are still likely year-round with just a 2 or so month break for this specific year rather than a full seasonal suspension.

(VenFlyer98 (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC))

@VenFlyer98:

I understand your point as well. I agree about a 2-3 week suspension, but even then, what do we do? Do we leave the destination as is, as if it's year round, or are we going to start adding start and ends dates on these flights, which is something wiki clearly doesn't want us to do, as per WP:AIRPORTS guidelines. Hence why the seasonal mention makes sense. Several other airlines have routes they operate 9 or 10 months a year. Air Canada comes to mind. They are all listed as seasonal. Not year round. What Delta specifically does or doesn't do is not relevant. And it's not guaranteed they wont implement the same suspensions next season. I think my way of doing it is a good compromise. If ever Delta reverts the route to year round next year, we can always remove the seasonal remark.

Thenoflyzone (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Thenoflyzone:

Yes, I agree with you. This exact situation was actually brought up before in a discussion, see [[1]], but looks like it didn't get very far. In a lot of the cases for routes, such as the Air Canada ones, they're usually announced as seasonal which isn't the case for the Delta ones, but I'm fine with whatever at this point. VenFlyer98 (talk) 05:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. I see no consensus was reached. Maybe I'll thrown the question again and see which way the wind blows this time.

Thenoflyzone (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, like I said, didn’t get very far. Wouldn’t be against another discussion, but fine with however it’s listed at this point. VenFlyer98 (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Bonza

Hello, just wanted to let you know I undid an edit you made reverting a previous edit on Gold Coast Airport. You reverted it as you said the changes (reflecting Bonza flight suspensions) were unsourced. The company has entered Voluntary Administration and announced all flights are suspended until further notice. This is a headline story across major national news outlets in Australia - eg. [2]. Just wanted to make you aware so you don't revert any other edits reflecting this unnecessarily. It looks pretty likely they'll resume as their aircraft have been repossessed and they have no real assets, so it's likely Bonza will be removed from Airlines and Destinations in the coming days once liquidation formally announced. Dfadden (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Dfadden:

Hello,

Of course I understand what is going on with Bonza. However, the user I reverted (and further more your revert of my edit) is unsourced. Please see WP:V and WP:RS. You need to include inline citations when making edits (see WP:IC).

Thank you! VenFlyer98 (talk) 04:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I understand what your point and respect you rigid adherence to policy. I dont wish to argue with you, but I would I suggest since you are aware of the situation, rather than reverting good faith edits, wouldn't it be more productive to add a citation rather than revert the edit on the grounds of policy? In this case, reverting the edit is actually removing information that you know to be true and can be easily verified to enforce policy, which comes across as somewhat disingenuous, goes against the spirit of WP:BUREAU and doesnt improve actually Wikipedia. Furthermore, if you want to apply the rules in such a bureaucratic way, why only this article and not all the other Bonza destinations that show as suspended without inline citations? I would argue that it is highly likely the data relating to Bonza is going to be removed from these lists in the coming days (and you cant provide an inline citation for removed content - although its a good idea to annotate in the edit summary). Even if you dont want to add the citation, I think its reasonable to apply WP:Ignore here. But I'm not going to climb the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman over something that won't likely wont matter in a few days. Thanks for responding and hearing me out! Dfadden (talk) 06:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Dfadden:

I understand, but can't I say the same to you? You've had your account for over a decade at this point, I'm going to assume in good faith you know how inline citations work when citing articles. If that is true, and you saw my revert for being unsourced (as it included no inline citations), couldn't you do a manual revert and add them rather than just revert and put the citation in the edit summary? That just brings it back to the original unsourced state. I only reverted some Bonza destinations as I wasn't actively going around to all of them, but going to do that now to clean them up. As I said, going to go clean things up now and yes, I should've just thrown the inline citations in myself, and not trying to WP:SHOOT, but it was more that I was doing several reverts at a time from a user who was listing the suspensions unsourced, and you know how WP:V is. Not trying to start anything, as we both know, Bonza is probably done in the coming days, but that's just my side of it. Thanks! VenFlyer98 (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I accept that I also could have done better here and I apologise if I came across as confrontational. At the time when I reverted the edit, I was a little busy - it just jumped out at me as something that was obviously true and assumed that you may not have been across the news (I know, assumptions are dangerous!) Reverting was a quick fix. I left the citation in the edit summary as clarification in the honest belief that Bonza would be removed from the box within a day or two anyway, or at the very least there would be substantial changes to their route network rendering the source out of date by the time I had a chance to do a more comprehensive edit and clean up all the Bonza articles, or to help someone who may beat me to it.

Current and rapidly developing events are often the subject of contentious edits. I dont think we are far apart in our intent and I believe we both edit in good faith. Clearly we have a difference of opinion on where discretion is warranted regarding policy and will not change each other's minds, but I wouldnt want that to stop us from working to improve aviation content in a collaborative way! Thanks for all your contributions! Dfadden (talk) 03:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)