Talk:Sofia Airport/Archive 1

Archive 1

Why did the idiot 217.189.147.6 delete the 2 new pictures?

Can the idiot that deleted the 2 pictures of the new terminal explain why s/he did it! Me and several other people did not spend hours in front of the monitor so you can delete our work in a matter of seconds! If you still pretend that you are not an idiot, plese give us your reasons for deleteing the pictures! Yeah, I am sure that you don't even know what I am talking about. Делян 22:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, it is against Wikipedia policy to call someone an "idiot".

Secondly, 217.189.147.6 didn't delete the images, they just deleted the links to images that had already been deleted.

Thirdly, the images were deleted because they were against Wikipedia policy (no copyright notice), because the person that uploaded it didn't follow policy in uploading them. The only person you can blame is the person that uploaded the image for not doing it correctly.

Therefore, assuming the person who uploaded the work is yourself, aren't you the "idiot"? --kjd 03:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't even this person that uploaded the pictures it was another editor and the person that deleted them was User:Jaranda. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I almost started feeling like an "idiot"! How would you feel if somebody wipes out your work without any explanation? If User:Jaranda deleted the images, how come I don't see his name under the history tab? I think I should ask User:Jaranda if s/he knows how to type in english, because it is highly recommended to give some explanation when you delete somebody else's work. And finally, I'll kindly ask User:Ogicito to spend another 30 minutes of his time to post his deleted pictures again this time without the copyright notice. Делян 13:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaranda provided an explanation when they deleted it under the image's history page [1]. And it doesn't take 30 minutes to reupload a file to Wikipedia. --kjd 15:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Delyan, I'm not sure what your problem is. You didn't upload the pictures, nor did you add them to the article so nobody wiped out your work. By the way this is a Wiki and "your work" and "my work" gets edited (wiped out) all the time. All the work was done by Ogicito and they are not complaining. The reason you don't see Jaranda's name in the Sofia Airport history is because the pictures were deleted from their own image page and not this article. Jaranda did noting wrong and in fact should be complimented for protecting Wikipedia by deleting images that may violate someones copyright. I would like to see some sort of an apology to 217.189.147.6 and Jaranada for the rudness that you have shown them. Here's the link that shows Jaranda also delted the second picture. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Cambridge, you seem to be more concerned about Jaranda! Step in my shoes for a moment. How do I know that the images have their own page and I am supposed to go there and look for an explanation? Can it be more complicated than that? I guess the system is not designed with a human factor in mind! I simply go to the page and I see that the nice pictures are deleted, then I go to the history tab, which is the most obvious place to look for explanations and I see NO explanation there! This is like you having to pay a fine, but nobody tells you what the fine is for! Yes, the owner of the pictures is Ogicito, but him and me started the new title and that is why I feel some kind of ownership here! I doubt Ogicito will post images again! The damage has been done already! I am sorry to Jaranda and the IP guy, but I don't think that they even read this! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Delyan (talk • contribs) 13:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

It seems to me that there are several things you should read Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Any chance somone can add a distance from Sofia city centre?

Wizz Air's Sofia-Varna flights start on 12th of July, 2008! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delyan (talk • contribs) 15:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, who added flights to New York and Montreal? Come out and show some prove.....Делян (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Winter fog & not-fully-operational ILS

I just endured an involuntary 7 hour bus ride from Burgas since the fog has prevented most air traffic to and from Sofia airport the last couple of days. I've been informed that fog is quite common during the winter season, and combined with a missing or not-fully-operational Instrument landing system makes this a common event. Any comments? Raffen (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

What person did the current destinations layout?

I cannot understand the destinations layout! ITS HORRIBLE, what idiot thought it was an improvement! I think it needs sorting right away!Zaps93 (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Airvia-logo.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Airvia-logo.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

No source for the 2016 total passanger number

The table says 4,980,387, the source says nothing of that. FkpCascais (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

How is that I still dont see that number anywhere after this? Source 3 and 4 claim it (articles just citing alegedly Sofia airport sayiing that), but source 44 not. WHere are the OFFICIAL numbers? FkpCascais (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The airport appears to keep their statistics here. They line up to the 4,980,387 number. Kuru (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Finally. Thanks. FkpCascais (talk) 01:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. Kuru (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Sofia Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071022152259/http://standartnews.com/archive/2004/06/18/english/bulgaria/s4113_12.htm to http://www.standartnews.com/archive/2004/06/18/english/bulgaria/s4113_12.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081004193134/http://www.mtc.government.bg/page.php?category=92&id=663 to http://www.mtc.government.bg/page.php?category=92&id=663
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090118033336/http://www.sofia-airport.bg/default.aspx to http://www.sofia-airport.bg/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090118033336/http://www.sofia-airport.bg/default.aspx to http://www.sofia-airport.bg/default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

removal of entire airlines from destination list

User:Charlesdrakew,

Why, in your war against future route information, do you keep removing Ryanair and Easyjet in their entirety from the destination list of this airport (present and future routes alike)?

for Ryanair, Sofia Airport is actually a hub. Funny that you claim they don't fly to and from a hub of theirs. Tdunsky (talk) 06:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

policy clarification - future routes with 3rd party reference

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

We have an ensuing edit war in this article (Sofia Airport) which I would like your help in resolving. As a result you can also help clarify Wikipedia general policy on the matter.

I, and other users, claim that future routes in an article about an airport or airline - when properly referenced by an independent source e.g. an article in a neutral news site - is valid encyclopedic information. It is in fact common practice in airport articles across Wikipedia. As a result, we have been adding such information to this and other articles.

One other user claims the opposite, that all future route information is unencyclopedic and constitutes advertising and promotional information. As a result that user has been deleting all such information from this article, even when referenced to an independent source, and intends to do that in articles of other airports as well.

You can check out the history of the page for more details.

Your comments and clarifications are welcome. Tdunsky (talk) 05:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

When referenced properly (using third party sources such as news articles, or primary sources explicitly stating the fact), there has never been an issue with having future routes listed. Using airline timetables, as I see in easyjet, is original research in my opinion and could very well be removed or have a citation needed tag added. To add, I don't see it as being promotional as neither fares or schedules are mentioned in the tables. Garretka (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

what are "primary sources explicitly stating the fact"? Is an official statement or press release by an airline, stating a route will open on a specific date, considered such a source?

And about airline timetables or route maps - aren't they considered evidence for the existence of a route? Tdunsky (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand using such material is original research, as long as no further conclusions (other than the information they intend to support) are drawn.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Correct, primary sources would be an official statement from the airline stating start/stop dates.

Route maps may very well be ok, but timetables, in my opinion, are problematic. Yes they provide evidence a flight exists, but they cannot be used to state start and stop dates, or establish seasonality, per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Garretka (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

There are companies that provide timetables including start and end dates.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure there are. But I have yet to see that used to reference routes; I know that doesn't mean it hasn't been done, but I digress. Timetable might not be the appropriate term, booking engine would be more accurate. There are many users that use the booking engine when citing start and stop dates/establish seasonality, which I believe fits the definition of OR and SYNTH. Garretka (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I meant published timetables in pdf format, not search engines.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 02:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Just wait ? I do not have a large opinion on this, but I'd tend towards not including it as verging into WP:SPECULATION -- it seems too small a detail to be notable except in unusual circumstances, and not a big deal to just wait until it is actually happened. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTAGUIDE. "An encyclopedia article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, not a complete exposition of all possible details." Despite the very common practice to list routes and so on in airline and airport articles, this is against Wikipedia policy. Complete route information is not a summary but, as the phrase implies, a complete exposition. The fact that many (if not most) airport and airline articles contain a complete list of routes instead of a summary-style section of prose about the important routes is against Wikipedia policy, and a result of the selective enforcement and the disjointed structure of policy pages.

Use reliable sources and focus on information that is prominent in those sources. Bright☀ 20:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Bright☀ that there should be a summary in line with policy. Further, undue weight given to future or current, probably ephemeral, routes at the expense of a broad exposition of the subject of routes over the decades is not supported by the balance pointed by Wikipedia:Recentism.SovalValtos (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

After a thought, I sort of disagree. Althought WP:NOTAGUIDE is a usefull policy for overall issues in Wikipedia, the fact that we have hard-working editors willing to have complete and updated informations about the routes, ends up being a positive thing. I see some contradiction here while saying "a summary-style section of prose about the important routes" because unless we have a secondary source refering to it so we could use it in the prose, it would end up being a selective biased selection of routes. Consequently, having a table which is updated and sourced with all routes, ends up being usefull information and an extra Wikipedia provides to visitors. FkpCascais (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Guys, whatever you are claiming that Sofia Airport is "promoting itself for advertising purposes" or all this utter nonsense is respected. I have, myself, compared the rest of the nearby capitals and it is only Sofia Airport with the war edit. So, all those pointless claims of yours are simply based on your personal, negative point of view. You are just simply lucky that you have a more privileged status on Wikipedia allowing you to "warn" or those "threataning" messages, or else you remain to be disrespectful. Thank you for ruining this page we all kept editing and improving for the last couple of years. Remember, Karma will act sooner or later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LimaZulu84 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

But wait. Don´t be unfair. Not sure if you understood my comment, but from what I understand, I support you view. I don´t see a reason that the article about Sofia airport should be any different from more than 90% of all important airport articles of the world. For instance, I agree with Bright that this is an encyclopedia and that prose is what is favoured, and within the prose, finding secundary sources pointing out the historically relevant routes. However, what we are dealing here in practice is the routes list which is found in nearly every airport article. So they are two separate things. I agree that the list should be complete, updated and sourced the best as possible. Now, I am no expert regarding the sourcing for the routes list problem, if there is any. In my view, that is the only thing to be setled out. FkpCascais (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Please, provide us with an example of another airport having similar future routes, not "advertising itself" and belonging to your "90% list". We can simply apply their model. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LimaZulu84 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Henri Coandă International Airport in its list of destinations is full of "Begins/ends" notes. FkpCascais (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:OSE. I'm indifferent in this discussion, I've long advocated secondary sources should be used to avoid WP:OR and to satisfy WP:V. I agree there's policy based arguments for not having the tables at all, and WP:10YT suggests weight be given to past events rather than recent events which can be seen as WP:NOTNEWS. Garretka (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Henri Coandă International Airport doesn't even have official sources for future routes. Take Ryanair as an example. With the example, you have just provided, I am afraid we will be unable to find a common language. You have people editing this page for years now and we have never faced any edit war issues. What's crazy, is that you are all clearly deleting the future routes but leaving the ending ones. Coincidence? I don´t think so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LimaZulu84 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Fully protected for 1 week. Note that this is the third full protection this year. Airplaneman ✈ 17:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I have looked for Airport featured articles to see what they have, and found none that include tables of airlines and destinations. Only lower grade articles have them. That might be a good precept to guide us into working to remove the table from this article. Could an editor give us a draft text summary replacement to consider? Incidentally this would save us hard-worked editors from the task of attempting to keep detail up to the minute, when there is no consensus what that detail should be, and free us for more profitable editing.SovalValtos (talk) 05:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree to get any airport article to FA status the tables will likely stand in the way. But removing them will be treated like a live grenade. How do we handle that? Do we just list the airlines? Garretka (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Please can we have a suggestion as to how the continued inclusion of tables can be reconciled with moving to FA status? Would moving towards FA by now removing the tables be better? At first a replacement summary of route history over the long existence of the airport may not sufficiently notable to be to sourced, so may have to await a section's inclusion for suitable sources on their history to be published. There is no hurry.SovalValtos (talk) 08:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey comrades, what is happening? What are you doing here? The revert is OK, but not for the right reasons. The problem is that is unsourced. But I dont understand why you insist on the NOTTRAVEL removal of begin/end of routes when all other airport articles include that information. What we demand is to be properly sourced. FkpCascais (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Progressing towards Featured Article

There has been a request at the top of the article for more citations for over two years. Plenty of unsourced material remains, notably in the Airlines and destinations tables. There has been some support above for removing the tables completely with the long-term aim of using text instead. I am not going to remove the tables immediately to give other editors more time to comment, however I intend to start removing uncited material.SovalValtos (talk) 10:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Per longstanding consensus, most recently here: [2] airports are allowed to have destination tables. I do not support removing them. SportingFlyer talk 11:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you SportingFlyer for contributing, others have not used talk. I looked at the link you included, but as I read it it did not establish a consensus, rather the reverse. Please further help by showing us how the retention of current airline and destination tables (ones that use the present tense) could be compatible with achieving FA status.SovalValtos (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@SovalValtos: I'm sorry, why don't you think there's a consensus to include destination tables in articles? See also [3], in which Option D - removing tables - was rejected, and [4], in which destination tables were kept. The biggest issue here is stopping the edit war over the destination tables themselves, since many other airports don't suffer from the same issues. SportingFlyer talk 12:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Calgary International Airport#Airlines and destinations and the subsequent sections might be of value. Garretka (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I do not have the time at present to consider all the helpful links, so will look forward to others who think the tables are compatible with Featured Article status proving their point by their progressing this article to FA whilst including them. Meanwhile I will help by removing unsourced material.SovalValtos (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I have updated the airlines & destinations table to include a reference column found on other good quality airport Wikipedia pages. I believe this is a good start. I suggest future routes should, as per general custom, be sourced inline, with current routes referenced in the reference column. SportingFlyer talk 23:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy takes precedence over any local conventions decided by a WikiProject's membership. If these are incompatible it is the project that needs to make changes.Charles (talk) 08:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Charles, please stop removing properly cited information. Your edits are becoming disruptive. SportingFlyer talk 08:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

From what I gather, the problem isn't the cited material or the destination table but the addition of future destinations. Ideally we should only include current destinations unless encyclopedic enough to warrant new routes that are confirmed to operate in the future. Ajf773 (talk) 09:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The majority of other airports include future destinations in the destination tables as long as they are properly referenced. I'm not sure consensus has been specifically noted at any RfC, but it is current common practice, and it makes sense - if someone notices a future route has started, they can remove the "starting on" date, which seems easier than doing the research to update the destination table when the route starts. I don't see why this article would be an exception. SportingFlyer talk 10:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Ideally, historical routes should also be kept, whether in this table or a seperate table. Per WP:RECENTISM, we shouldn't be giving more weight to recent events, i.e. Future routes. Garretka (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Is there a single source that could be used to ref current routes?SovalValtos (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree in regards to historical routes. There's no single usable source that I know of for routes, though. SportingFlyer talk 20:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Some airports list their destinations, which, while a primary source, are perfectly fine as there is no interpretation required; they are stating facts. Larger airports, however, tend not to do this. There are lots of sources that will require original research to prove. So, no, finding a single source will be challenging to say the least. Garretka (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

We shouldn't keep any original research, but that's very different than using WP:PRIMARY sources... SportingFlyer talk 23:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Future destinations

Charlesdrakew once again reverted the sourced Ryanair future flight to Bergamo in the directory table claiming it violates WP:NOTDIR without removing any other future flights from the table. I have no desire for an edit war, but WP:NOTDIR isn't a valid argument for not keeping this information. I'd like consensus on whether we can include this particular flight in the table to avoid an edit war. SportingFlyer talk 21:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

This information is to anyone with a little common sense part of a directory. It also fails WP:PROMO, "Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so." Stating when a service will start is a public service announcement. Charles (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

No one is promoting the service, we're just including cited information in these destination tables which longstanding consensus says are Wikipedia-acceptable. SportingFlyer talk 21:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOT is a bigger consensus.Charles (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOT actually anywhere doesn´t directly enter in conflict with updating starting and ending flights. I completelly understand why is hard for editors to understand why you insist on that on this specific article when all other airport articles update their flights list. FkpCascais (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually it does, as I pointed out a few lines above, but WP:NOT is not an exhaustive list of what is banned. It sets out an ethos of what is encyclopedic with some examples given. When we have a policy titled NOTTRAVEL it is hard to see how details of when services start or end can be compatible. Such ephemeral information does not make stable encyclopedic content but is more news.Charles (talk) 09:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Airports main bussiness is dealing with flights. Companies and destinations provide that info. Once we have them on table, they better be sourced and updated. Then the airport articles should have sections about history, infrastructure, and basically that´s it. Personally, I expanded the historical sections of several airport articles, and I never added, or removed, any destinations. However, I understand, and appreciate, editors that keep those sections updated. So, I cannot understand what´s the point of having a destinations table (all ariport articles have) if we don´t allow editors to keep them updated? FkpCascais (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, I don´t see that listing the new destinations as violating any point at WP:PROMO. New destinations are just a fact, and are added same way as other destinations that are already listed (the end of routes is listed as well, same way). PROMO would be violated if some new destination was highlighted in comparison to others. Actually your removal of the addition of certain announced future routes would end up creating a problem with PROMO, because we would then be cherry-picking one routes over others, and that would be favoring some and promoting them. Having the list complete and updated actually solves the problem of promo, as treats all airlines and all routes same way, neutrally. FkpCascais (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no reason to list any of them. It is WP:Recentism and ephemeral, not encyclopedic content. It is a directory, contrary to WP:NOTDIR. Wikipedia never sets out to include every detail that can be proved, only to give an overview of the subject.Charles (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

As I've noted, we include referenced future destinations on almost every airport per consensus. If you disagree, start an RfC and see if other people agree with you, and until then, please stop reverting sourced future destinations. SportingFlyer talk 22:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Potential source

Here is a potential source which might help in the transition of the problematic Airlines and destinations table into more suitable text summary [5]. It at least shows one route before the second world war.SovalValtos (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I support adding the source, but I do not support the conversion of the table into a text summary in order to maintain consistency with all other airports. SportingFlyer talk 21:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I also support adding the source. I'd like to see this article be bold and try a different direction, using text summaries may work. But I don't think it should be discounted without trying. Garretka (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I support using the source. It will move the article towards being encyclopedic rather than recentist and an advertising platform for current routes. Prose format is preferable to tables full of undue detail.Charles (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Another source that should repay worth exploring is The Statesman's Yearbook in its various annual editions. I have used it just once so far.SovalValtos (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Moving forward

Having allowed a reasonable time for contributions on talk, I am now starting the attempt to replace the still largely uncited airlines and destinations table with a summary in text. It is a simple start with the hope that others with access to suitable sources will expand the section. Particularly useful would be some sources for routes prior to 1989 and then again before the 2006 expansion. I would ask editors who might oppose this step to consider that the table format is unlikely to lead to FA and contribute positively rather than oppose out of hand, giving the attempt a few months to see how it develops.SovalValtos (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I completely disagree with this approach. How many airport pages do you see where there are references for each and every destination? Please return the table - what good is this summary if you don't find information about the current destinations? Who does really care about routes prior to 1989 and 2006?!

WP:OSE. Displaying current routes clearly violates WP:RECENTISM and is borderline WP:NOTTRAVEL. This is an encyclopedia, not a travel guide. Wikipedia is to give an overview of the topic, not every little detail. The summary in its current state is a good start. Garretka (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

OK but I would like to ask again - name even one page for a major airport which does not have the current routes.

All the other pages being against policy does not make it right.Charles (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

The question should be open in corresponding WikiProjects then. FkpCascais (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

You should not make this article victim of you proving a point. Since you claim it breaks so much policies, then it should not be difficult for you to open a broad discussion there and obtein consensus, which then you could use definitelly in such removals, and even remove those tables en masse. Until then, you should not remove the table. FkpCascais (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no requirement to do so. Wikiprojects are informal groupings.Charles (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

There is a requirement forx you to obtein consensus for such bold moves. So please go and do it first. FkpCascais (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

The main point of wikipedia and this page in particular is to be informative. I do not understand why would you not want this page to serve its purpose and how did you decide to make a unilateral decision and remove this table just because you think it is against the policies (and clearly no one else shares this opinion). Bai brother (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

There was a discussion here. That was the consensus. Participate in the discussion, rather than using WP:IDONTLIKEIT as a reason to refuse it. The push here is for featured quality articles, which won't happen with the tables. Why some editors feel holding this article back is beyond me. You can't claim WP:BRD when the discussion has been started and ongoing here. Garretka (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Obviously there is no consensus. As mentioned above, the table has been here for years. Until it becomes an established rule (which, again, should appear on all airport wiki pages), it should stay. It does not advertise anything, as written above, it just says whether an airline flies to Sofia or not. My suggestion for a consensus is that your summary stays, if so important, but also the table. Bai brother (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Any consensus here, or at a Wikiproject, has to be in line with policy or it is meaningless. The article can not improve if fancruft is preferred to a good article.Charles (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

No consensus exists for the removal. I don't mind prose, especially for historical destinations, but we should gain consensus on the talk page about the proposed prose before we add it to the article to ensure this airport isn't inconsistent with every other airport. I've also noted before destination tables are not a blocker for feature article status. SportingFlyer talk 23:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

There are only three airport related featured articles, none of which include destination tables. I fail to see how including them in their current state will elevate any airport articles. Garretka (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

None of those are commercial airports, though. I did confuse FA with GA, but there are many GA articles with destination tables. [6] SportingFlyer talk 00:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Moving forward, part II

As noted above, there's no consensus for removing the airlines and destinations table, and any consensus for removal should be gained off of this talk page, as every other commercial airport contains these tables and consensus has specifically been gained through a number of discussions (I think they're noted above.) That being said, I have no problem with both prose for historical destinations. For the time being, can I offer a solution of creating the historical destinations in prose, with the table underneath?

The prose below, removing the 2018 bit, read before it was reverted - I think we can go from here:

In 1937 Sofia was used on a route from Berlin to Athens.[31] and by 1938 regular direct flights linked Sofia to Belgrade [32] Just before the end of the one-party socialist state at the end of the 1980s BALKAN (Bulgarian Airlines) were operating both domestic, and mainly European international routes, to numerous destinations, carrying 2.8m passengers.[33]

SportingFlyer talk 11:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree, let's keep both the table and the historical summary/overview. Bai brother (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I still think it's giving too much weight to recent events. What I'd really like to hear from are editors who have been successful in bringing articles to FA status and gather their opinions. FA quality is very, very different from how GA articles are graded. Garretka (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Why recent events - some of these airlines have been flying to Sofia for decades. I really suggest that we stick to how basically all other airport pages are written, which (again) includes the destinations and airlines table. Otherwhise I would not agree on keeping the historical summary Bai brother (talk) 14:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The accusation of recentism is unfounded. In that case any article which is updated to the date is recentism. For exemple, it would be like removing the "Current squad" section from Manchester United F.C. article. Football clubs have players and coaches, and the article obviously includes the list of current players in the club. An airport article same way includes the list of current airlines and destinations. What all these articles need is an expansion of the other sections such as historical ones, but not the removal of sections dealing with current data. FkpCascais (talk) 15:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I stand by my statement. You dragging soccer clubs into this is WP:OSE. One requirement of FA's is that the article be:

stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.

These tables change by the month, if not week. The history doesn't change, and is therefore stable, not to mention more encyclopedic. I repeat that editors experienced in elevating articles should weight in. The WP:10YT is a good example of which current destinations should be mentioned in this case, with only extraordinary exceptions. Garretka (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, we already agreed that your summary can stay (where history doesn't change), but we insist that the table stays as well, like in all other pages for a major international commercial airport (for the hundredth time...). If we reach a consensus there will not be "edit wars". Please consider this approach. Bai brother (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Who is "we"? You can speak for yourself but not for others, or are you representing some sort of cabal? There is no consensus to keep the table.Charles (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I see that FkpCascais also shares my opinion to some extent, and I have been talking to other editors as well. Why you should be the one to decide? Just find another page to ruin and leave this one, it was perfectly fine before you started this Bai brother (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• I would suggest starting an RfC if you want to remove the tables. The most recent proposal to remove them ended in straight keep votes on the airport Wikiproject page. Also, the entire conflict is over the table - if we can accept to leave it alone for now, stop edit-warring over it, and gain consensus elsewhere, we can work collaboratively on making the rest of the article ready to be submitted for FA. SportingFlyer talk 20:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikiprojects do not make policy. They need to follow it.Charles (talk) 10:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• So we should just ignore community consensus because you don't like it? SportingFlyer talk 22:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

A local consensus is valueless if it deviates from policy. Policy has to be changed by the appropriate means.SovalValtos (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree with Bai brother. He was carefull to say "at some extent" but regarding the issue of the airlines and destinations table, I actually agree with him on full extent.

Futher more, if there is a Wikipedia:Consensus to keep the airlines and destinations table at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports, it becomes a rule by now, since it is a project most directly related to the article. Consensus can change, indeed, but you Charles need to challenge the established one and obtain wide support for it before claiming it changed. Sorry, but WP:DTS can also apply by now. Why don´t you raise the issue at some place where many participants could weight the arguments and confirm, or change, consensus, and then it could be applied to all airport articles? FkpCascais (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

SovalValtos, the problem is that there are no policies being clearly broken here, just claims of that based on personal (miss)interpratations. Whoever is so sure policies are being broken should not have problems raising the issue at proper discussion boards to obtain support for its claims. FkpCascais (talk) 03:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I've mentioned this before, but the most recent RfC can be found here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports/Archive_15#Request_for_comments_on_the_Airlines_and_destinations_tables SportingFlyer talk 04:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much SportingFlyer. We can see that the concerns expressed here to remove the table were taken into account in that discussion, and the result was a clear consensus to keep the tables. So, just as I was saying here from the begining, the only thing is to properly reference the beginings and ends of routes. FkpCascais (talk) 04:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree, guys, I also think we reached a clear consensus. Thank you, SportingFlyer and FkpCascais. Bai brother (talk) 07:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

To play devils advocate, that RfC was very much a local consensus, when compared with the broader VPP discussion (Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 140#Should Wikipedia have and maintain complete lists of airline destinations?). The definition of local consensus may help some users understand what the other side is saying. Garretka (talk) 08:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree, though reading down that RfC became a mess and ultimately turned into Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive296#Mass_deletion_of_pages_-_question_of_protocol and the destinations were kept. Looking at this from another angle, if the goal is to make this a featured article, why not keep the destination table for at least the time being, properly reference it, and attempt to come up with a good prose-based either alternative to the table or something that works with the table in the meantime? What's highlighted above is only a start, which is part of the problem. At the moment, it's not better than what it's replacing, but I think it's a good start, especially for historical destinations. If, however, this is just the article where the battle on whether destination tables should exist is happening, we need to move the discussion elsewhere quickly. SportingFlyer talk 12:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

SportingFlyer kindly raised a discussion I started early this year regarding the removal of airline destination lists. The result of a similar discussion regarding the removal of destination tables in airports will very likely be keep, so I suggest don't waste your time in starting such discussions.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 November 2018

{{request edit|Sofia Airport}} Flybe no longer fly NCL-SOF so that needs removing please Bikerdavecycling (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Further protected edit request on 23 November 2018

Sourced text material was removed in this edit [7] by User:FkpCascais without a reason being given in the edit summary which said "(Undid revision 868227777 by Ajf773 (talk) Exactly. Go search for consesus for your removal first. The list was there for years, you removed it, you were reverted, per WP:BRD stop edit warring)". Please replace the sourced text " In 1937 Sofia was used on a route from Berlin to Athens.[31] and by 1938 regular direct flights linked Sofia to Belgrade [32] Just before the end of the one-party socialist state at the end of the 1980s BALKAN (Bulgarian Airlines) were operating both domestic, and mainly European international routes, to numerous destinations, carrying 2.8m passengers.[33] In 2018 the airport was being used by tens of airlines for scheduled, charter and seasonal operations on many European routes and on several further afield. Most airlines were operating one route, with Bulgaria Air, Ryanair and Wizz Air several.[34][35][36][37] [38] [39] [40][35] [41][42], [43][44] [45] [46][47][48][49] [50] " at the top of the Airlines and destinations section.SovalValtos (talk) 07:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Please feel free to restore the text (I fully support the text), just don´t remove the table in the process. FkpCascais (talk) 10:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

The table is problematic on many levels including instability, recentism, advertising and promotion. It should be replaced by SV's more encyclopedic text.Charles (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

The tables were already discussed on more than one ocasion, same concerns were taken into account, and the result was to keep them. Removing the table at this point would be even more problematic. Passanger and cargo airlines schedulled in the airport and its destinations, are the main bussiness of an airport. Having that information complete and updated is proving the reader full unbiased valuable information. Removing the table and selecting airlines and destinations to mention would bring the issues of advertising and promotion to the highest level. It would be impossible to criate a criterium. Mention the domestic plus the foreign top 5? Why 5, why not 3 or 7? Include top 5 destinations? Why not top 10? Can you imagine the instability that would create? People would do all tricks in order to get their favourite airline or destination mentioned. And how would you explain to them why some are mentioned and others can´t? Having them all mentioned without favouring no one is actually the perfect and only way to solve advertising, promotion and instability problem. Regarding recentism, resulting from the fact that a large portion of the article is occupied by the list dealing with current data about airport use, the solution is not to delete the list, but to incentivate editors to expand the other sections, similarly as I did on another airport article here. FkpCascais (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you User:FkpCascais for your approval of restoration as I have requested but could more general input on other subjects be added elsewhere? Please keep the comments here directly relevant to my request which so far is unopposed?SovalValtos (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it didn't seem to me as if there was any problem with the text that was removed, more that it got caught up in the edit war. As noted I'm happy for the text to be restored as well, above the table. We just don't have consensus about removing the table. SportingFlyer talk 00:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

No need to thank me, you are very gentile. I should apologise for having it removed. SportingFlyier is absolutelly right, it got removed only because the issue was the inclusion, or not, of the table. I intended just to restore the table, and the easiest way was to revert, but I though everyone knew I had absolutelly nothing against the text. Right the opposite, I support expanding the prose as much as possible. It was even me who added the part about Belgrade, Aeroput, plane model, and source, long time ago. I suggest that the problem of recentism (even if I think that really doesnt exist and that is just a question of perspective) should be solved by expanding more the prose, and not by removing the table. I should also inform everyone here that I opened a thread at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Airports since I get the impression that this discussion about the table is not going to end here, so better see what community thinks about it. FkpCascais (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. The frustrating thing is the edit war seems to be only about the table at this point - if we could just agree on maintaining the status quo of leaving the table in and properly referencing it for the time being, the article wouldn't have to be continually protected and we could all work together towards making it a FA. If the airlines and destinations table is blocking it from FA status, we can hold a RfC (I think the Village Pump might be a better place?) SportingFlyer talk 00:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe. I actually never used Village Pump, but rather the discussion pages of corresponding projects the article belongs to. In this case it was WP:Airports. Discussion there happened and consensus was established, but some editors here disregarded the consensus as just "local". I opened the thread there not actually to solve this case, but to indicate the sort of conflicts that occur which are decisive for the style of encyclopedia Wikipedia is and is evolving to. Notece that this apparently obscure local discussion may influence much more than initially appears. If the table is removed, it will certainly be used as valid argument to remove it everywhere. And removing it everywhere can spread much further to the removal of similar sort of tables and content in many other areas. Ends up being a decition that dictates the policies itself of Wikipedia. FkpCascais (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

This was discussed at the Village Pump less than a year ago, resulting in consensus that these full destination lists should not be kept.Charles (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I see that removal so problematic. If you remove it from here, basically we can start removing them from all airport articles. There will be major repercusions. For instance, minor airports will be left with hardly any content. The table at lest have the airlines and destinations organised in a simple neutral manner and without favouring any. Another issue is that I am not sure how aware you are that there is no major literature about airports in general. Just the main ones offer us content to add such as their history and important events. I honestly think that not all aspects were taken into account when this was discussed. For some reason, at WP:Airports, which gathers editors much better familiarised with the issue, the result of the discussion was to keep them. FkpCascais (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Charlesdrakew: that discussion was about pages like List of Turkish Airlines destinations, not about these tables. It was also effectively overturned through the results of several AfD discussions. There was a separate discussion regarding the sourcing necessary for these destination tables in airport articles. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

 Administrator note  Not done this page is no longer protected and may be edited directly. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Fuel supply

Can any editor suggest sources for how aeroplane fuel has been supplied to the airport over the years? Cans by road, road tankers, railway tankers, pipeline or even airlift during the second world war etc. Are there any newspaper archive sources?SovalValtos (talk) 12:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

This article from 2011 suggests the airport uses 200 tons of fuel per day. It also suggests the fuel is (or was) trucked in. I'll dig a bit more and see if I can find anything else. Garretka (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

That source is an excellent start Garretka. The current structure of the article does not present an obvious section for the inclusion of fuel supply, neither does Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content immediately help show where fuel supply should be included. Might there be an infrastructure sub section or is there a better answer? The airport reconstruction section looks like it should be integrated into History.SovalValtos (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Calgary International Airport (a GA class article) features History, Infrastructure, A&D, Stats, Ground Transport and Incidents as subsections. I would encourage, and assist when available, to move towards this type of structure. The fuel information would most definitely fit within infrastructure. Garretka (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Garretka (talk · contribs) and think we can start reworking the "Airport reconstruction" section into an "infrastructure" section, particularly with the history of the runway layout and maybe toning down the corporate-speak of some of the hangar information. SportingFlyer talk 02:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@SovalValtos and SportingFlyer: I have been looking to source/re-write the history section of the article and cannot seem to find much online besides this poorly written wordpress article [8]. However, in this case, would a primary source such as this [9] be acceptable in this situation? I personally don't see an issue - it would be used to establish fact and require no interpretation. Please let me know your thoughts. Garretka (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:PRIMARY, I have no problem with it at all - just be careful not to interpret the source, which you're already well aware of. SportingFlyer talk 21:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I made some significant revisions to the structure of the article. I will continue as time permits. If anyone has time to give a second set of eyes that would be appreciated. Garretka (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Good to see some positive editing rather than fancruft or promo. I cannot help at present.SovalValtos (talk) 08:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Please explain

User:Jimka1 please could you explain in simple clear language what your edit summary for your edit [10] is intended to mean? I find it incomprehensible. Please also explain how are you trying to improve the article.SovalValtos (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)