Talk

edit

Hey @RickyCourtney, I want to know why nowadays List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches (2024) or List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches (2023) seems to be created. Is due to SpaceX 100-100 launches the lists like List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches (2020-2022) have reached there limits. Abdullah1099 (talk) 04:03, 19 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Correct. Large pages slow browsers, particularly for editors, so we divide launches to keep them manageable. While most rockets are split by decade, Falcon 9 requires more frequent division. I hope this helps! RickyCourtney (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I understand what you mean Abdullah1099 (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thoughts on an old discussion

edit

I was reminded of this discussion earlier… given the editor is still ignoring the pleas, what would you think can be done? Danners430 tweaks made 22:07, 20 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Bucholz

edit

If that reference applies to all the destinations, then apply it to all the destinations. You applied it to precisely one entry.

As for “don’t be so quick to revert” - with respect, I don’t care how experienced someone is an editor… the same standards apply to us all. Danners430 tweaks made 14:55, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

No, I applied it to the end of a list, as is common across Wikipedia. It’s nonsensical to require the same reference be repeated multiple times after each comma. I tossed it in the third column. RickyCourtney (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
The third column is ideal for this, yes I agree. However that is the standard which is applied (not by myself) across each and every airport article - general refs are in a third column, or each entry is individually sourced. Why is one article different? Danners430 tweaks made 15:00, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
It’s fixed. Let’s move on… RickyCourtney (talk) 15:03, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

West 30th Street

edit

You say you can't find a reliable secondary source - you do know we can use primary sources in those tables now? That was the whole point of the second RfC I held... Danners430 tweaks made 17:49, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I did not and a lot of other editors likely do not considering the hidden notes at the top of nearly every airport page admonishing editors to “Please use only independent sources. The airport and airlines are not independent sources.” RickyCourtney (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I've been removing those when I encounter them - they're still hangovers from before the RfC. Danners430 tweaks made 17:52, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Do you have a link to the RfC? Those notes are something I could bulk remove with JWB. RickyCourtney (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Or, If you think there’s a better note, I could replace it. RickyCourtney (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Some airport lists have an all-caps message which is primarily about sourcing in general... hang on Danners430 tweaks made 17:55, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Found it - it's <!--DO NOT ADD OR REMOVE ROUTES WITHOUT GIVING A VALID INDEPENDENT SOURCE. EXACT DATES ARE MANDATORY FOR NEW ROUTES TO BE ADDED HERE. ALSO ADD INLINE CITATIONS IF POSSIBLE.-->
With this, I've just been removing the word "independent", as the rest still rings true... but if you're attacking it with JWB, then it's a perfect opportunity to de-capitalise it! Danners430 tweaks made 17:58, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Not to hand (on mobile atm) - but I did update WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT following the RfC, and included the link there Danners430 tweaks made 17:54, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply