| Revision as of 22:32, 25 March 2018 editMandruss (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users64,868 edits →top: accuracy← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:20, 19 January 2025 edit undoMusikBot II (talk | contribs)Bots, Interface administrators, Administrators104,348 editsm Removing protection templates from unprotected page (more info)Tag: Manual revert | ||
| (152 intermediate revisions by 87 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{village pump page header|Policy talk|This page is for discussion about ] only. You may want one of the village pump subpages above, or one of the links on the ]. Irrelevant discussions will be moved or removed.|WT:VPP}}{{Archives|auto=yes |search=yes |title=] (]) |bot=lowercase sigmabot III |age=1|units=year| style=background-color:#eee9d9;border-color:#bfb1a3;border-width:2px }} | {{village pump page header|Policy talk|This page is for discussion about the page ] only. You may want one of the village pump subpages above, or one of the links on the ]. Irrelevant discussions will be moved or removed.|WT:VPP}}{{Archives|auto=yes |search=yes |title=] (]) |bot=lowercase sigmabot III |age=1|units=year| style=background-color:#eee9d9;border-color:#bfb1a3;border-width:2px }} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |algo=old(365d) | |algo=old(365d) | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| }}__TOC__ | }}__TOC__ | ||
| == Page size == | |||
| == <span id="Notability within bio (more specificallly: application of wp:GNG/wp:BIO against wp:AUTH/wp:PROF...and both vis-a-vis vagaries of actual practice!"></span> Notability within bio == | |||
| ''Full original section heading:'' '''Notability within bio (more specificallly: application of wp:GNG/wp:BIO against wp:AUTH/wp:PROF...and both vis-a-vis vagaries of actual practice!''' | |||
| Please see ]. ] (]) 16:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I.e.: Is ], editor of ''The Council of Fifty, Minutes, March 1844–January 1846'' (The Church Historian's Press, which is an imprint of Deseret Book; 2016), notable? Is ], who reviews him (''Religion & Politics,'' September 9, 2016)? Please chime in on a way to determine such questions in a much more consistent manner than at present...here: ].--] (]) 19:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Trying to figure out of this is the appropriate venue for a discussion == | |||
| ::Wow! That title was so like the title of a Victorian novel. Impressed. ]<sup>(] • ])</sup> 18:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| So I'm here trying to figure out where to hold s discussion that spun off from an ] on how information about active tropical cyclones (Hurricanes, typhoons etc) should be handled per ] and ]. Between my own comments and those from others, there have been at least four different suggestions on where to hold the discussion, with the latest suggestion being this page. This page seems to be more about changes to policy but some discussions here do seem to be about application. Where ever it is held, this discussion would involve changes to long-standing practices within a WikiProject. ] (]) 02:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == "Convenience" links in WP's tabs == | |||
| == Proposal to change the header == | |||
| Who makes heavy use of the "Table of contents", "First discussion", "End of page", and "New post" links near the top of each VP tab? I use them only on rare occasion and believe they are examples of poor user interface design. I suspect the visual clutter detriment far exceeds the intended benefit of more convenient navigation. If these links "made sense", then ''every'' page with a longer table of contents ought to have them. They aren't ubiquitous because it's overkill. The "New Page" link is duplicating the native Mediawiki "+" menu item. The "First discussion" and "End of page" can be found easily by normal browser scrolling like we do on talk pages. Those two links seem particularly useless to me. The first is linking to the oldest active discussion and probably the most likely thread to be stale. The click-through rate for that link must be very low. The second is linking to the end of a page in a way that requires one to use the scrollbar most of the time anyway to scroll back ''up'' to see the beginnings of the new threads you are interested in. The "Table of contents" link has the same issue: often the TOC is so long you need to use the scrollbar anyway so why not just use it in the first place? Heck, the links themselves and the horizontal rule (!) contribute to lengthening the top of the page, which adds to the very vertical space problem that some of these links are trying to solve. I am sure some people use these links but I suspect they are not heavily used. The question is a matter of design and after considering them for a bit I believe they should be removed. It would make the initial VP experience much cleaner and clearer for newer visitors. Thoughts? ] (]) 17:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :I like the TOC so I can see if there are any discussions I'm interested in rather than scrolling through the whole page. I don't much use the rest though. ~ '']''<sup>(]|])</sup><small>]</small> 17:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::I like the TOC too. I am not suggesting we remove it. I'm suggesting we remove the ''link'' to the TOC. ] (]) 19:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :As far as the TOC, why not just use what ] does with it? We use a scrollbar in the TOC itself instead of having to scroll through the page itself. <b><span style="font-family:Oswald;color:black">—</span></b> ] (]) 19:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::The WP:TH's scrollable TOC seems okay to me but I don't really view a scrollable TOC as an advantage to the normal TOC because either way the user has to use the scrollbar. But modification to the TOC itself is seperate than my suggestion. It's the ''link'' to the TOC that I'm suggesting to remove. ] (]) 19:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :To be more specific. In {{tl|Village pump page header}} I am discussing the possibly removing the code: | |||
| <pre> | |||
| <div class="hlist" style="text-align:center;"> | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * {{Edit|{{FULLPAGENAME}}|section=new|New post}} | |||
| </div> | |||
| </pre> | |||
| ] (]) 19:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh, that. I see what you're talking about now. It wouldn't bother me to get rid of that, but it also doesn't bother me to have it there. ~ '']''<sup>(]|])</sup><small>]</small> 20:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hmm. I didn't even notice that. I don't use it. If it's ok with everyone else to get rid of it, it's ok with me. <b><span style="font-family:Oswald;color:black">—</span></b> ] (]) 21:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :I created ] of how I think a "minor" redesign of the VP might look. It consists of three changes: A) the removal of the links above, B) a reordering of the tabs, and C) more rounding on the tabs for a refreshing visual change. Now that I can see my ideas in practice. I notice two things, the removal of the links encourages the editor to actually read the header text of each tab but there may be some value to the "Table of contents" link and "New post". At the moment I am still considering Change A. Change B I think is a slam dunk improvement. The "Idea lab" tab ought to be first. It also has the advantage of ''not'' have a redirect notice banner like the "Policy" tab does so there's less visual clutter for new visitors. C was intended just to remind ''me'' whether I was on my mockup or the real VP but it kind of looks and feels like a nice change. After I stew on it for a while and think of other potential changes, I may post to the "Idea lab" or even "propoals" regarding this. Thank you for your input. ] (]) 06:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :1. Along with laziness, apathy, and time limitation, clutter is one of the reasons people don't read the tops of pages. Every element should earn its keep, and these links don't. They are "nice to have" for a small fraction of users. I've never seen a need to use any of them and I think I'm functional enough at VP.<br />2. Unless one of our skins omits the standard "New section" link, I see no point in a redundant "New post" link. Multiple ways to accomplish the same thing is unjustified complexity—and tends to add to confusion and learning curve for new users.<br />3. I'm neutral as to Idea lab first, but it should precede Proposals.<br />4. Neutral as to curved tabs. ―] ] 11:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for your thoughts, Mandruss. Order-wise there's not much choice for the tabs. We both agree that "Idea lab" must be before "Proposals". Because they are closely related it makes sense they be adjacent. And as the first stage for ideas, it seems like it ought to be first. The "Miscellaneous" tab must obviously come last. "Technical" is almost like a "Miscellaneous" category so should come directly before "Miscellaneous". And "Policy" similar to "Proposals" so must come to the immediate right. Not sure what if any thought went into having "Idea lab" in the middle. ] (]) 12:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Two questions: (1) Since we already have a "new section" tab less than two inches above the "new post" tab, do we really need it? and (2) I clicked on the "first discussion" tab and nothing happened, so what is it supposed to do? ]<sup>(] • ])</sup> 18:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :I never use that set of links, and I am willing to support removal if no significant opposition arises. However I oppose changing the shapes of the tabs. It's an ] oppose, however I expect any support for it would be an equally weighty ]. ] (]) 16:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| The header for this Village pump begins with these words: | |||
| == Citation needed for first sentence in this article? == | |||
| {{xt|The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss already proposed policies and guidelines and to discuss changes to existing policies and guidelines.}} | |||
| Does the first sentence in ] need a citation? ] <sup>]</sup> 02:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :{{re|Bubba73}} The lead of the article usually does not need citations if it simply summarizes the article per ] (those other sections would normally contain referenced material). There are exceptions, like when a sentence is contentious. —]] – 04:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
| A few editors seem to think that this means editors should not discuss changes to existing policies and guidelines on the talk pages of those same policies and guidelines (the talk pages that say, at their tops, things like "This is the ] for discussing improvements to the ] page"). | |||
| :: Thanks. The first sentence of the article states what it is about, but an editor has repeatedly put "citation needed" on it. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think it's reasonable to request a source for that sentence, given that it is definining the problem with some very specific claims ("''the defending king possibly having some other material''" and "''The material with the defending king is usually one pawn''"). The reference doesn't need to be inline in the lede, but it should be explained somewhere in the body text how we arrived to that definition and what reliable sources have defined the scope of this endgame. ] (]) 08:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I would even argue that the amount of detail to describe what the defending player could have is too much detail for the lede, and should be the first section to describe the situation, thus providing a clean place in the body for the sources for that. That lede doesn't summarize the article very well and is more being used as a background/setup paragraph. --] (]) 14:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
| '''If you are interested in this, please see ]'''. ] (]) 00:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == obnoxious formatting == | |||
| == Adding Official Sources as references == | |||
| right now this page is rendering basically unreadable on small screens. It appears to be being caused by a photo gallery in the discussion about trains, which is so long it should probably be on it’s own dedicated subpage anyway. It’s really obnoxious having to zoom in in order to read anything. ] (]) 22:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| : ] to refactor that part of their comment, but they have not responded yet (and have not edited this wiki since Dec 17th). Do you, ]—or anyone else—think the problem is pressing anough to refactor the image gallery for them? - ] (]) 02:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, because there’s no reason for one user’s edits to be inconveniencing others. ] (]) 19:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::: OK, ]. Did this fix the problem, ]? - ] (]) 07:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::I didn't see it until after it was fixed, but it definitely would have been appropriate to apply an immediate fix. It surely falls within the intent of ]: ''Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read'', as well as ] for cleaning up any problem. Even on my widescreen desktop it drove the page to a fugly horizontal scrollbar. ] (]) 11:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, the page is rendering normally now, thank you! ] (]) 21:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| Please advise on why official sources such as Airlines and Airport websites cant be used when adding information to Misplaced Pages. | |||
| == Firearms/Mass shootings RfC: Poll update discrepancies == | |||
| In my opinion, it's inappropriate to include this unofficial tally in the RfC without an explanation of why the counts do not match the !votes. I'm moving it here temporarily. –] ] 23:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| Using Indepandant sources provides incorrect information. For example using a outdated article from clare fm saying Shannon- Paris is ending in October. Which is wrong because the official Airline and airport site state its NOT. | |||
| {{cot|collapse=no|title=Discussion moved from ] until discrepancies can be resolved.}} | |||
| Just an count of what we have so far, people can of course continue contributing/!voting. <s>42 54</s> 58 people have posted so far, (as of <s>Alanscottwalker @ 19:52, 24 February, DDG @ 05:16, 3 March</s>, SMcCandlish @ 11:53, 10 March). There is a mixture of results, because of all the options and the way the RfC is written. Of the <s>42</s> 54, <s>4</s> 5 are clearly not !notes, but a question, a criicism and <s>2</s> 3 comments, which leaves <s>38</s> 49 !votes which so break down as follows; | |||
| *Oppose - 7 | |||
| *Oppose (support 1B) - 3 | |||
| *Oppose ("''unless relevance to the gun, ie: law changes''") - 1 | |||
| *Oppose (support 1A/2A) - 1 | |||
| *1A/2A - <s>4</s> 6 | |||
| *1A - 1 | |||
| *1A/2B - 1 | |||
| *1A/2C - <s>1</s> 2 | |||
| Misplaced Pages is supposed to be reliable source providing old links like that is wrong and unrelibale. | |||
| *"''if sourced''" 1C, "''if not''" 1B/2C - 1 | |||
| Please allow official sites be used ] (]) 09:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *1C - 2 | |||
| *1C/2C - <s>5 7</s> 10 | |||
| *"''situational''" 1C/2C - 1 | |||
| *1C "or" 1D - 1 | |||
| *1C/1D - 1 | |||
| *"''depends''" 1D/2C - 1 | |||
| *1D ("but 1C if...") - 1 | |||
| *1D/2C - <s>3</s> 6 | |||
| *1D/2D - 3 | |||
| *1D - 4 | |||
| *(other) | |||
| **"''do like everywhere else''" | |||
| **"comment" | |||
| **"please clarify C" | |||
| **"wrongly posed question" | |||
| **"case by case" | |||
| :They can? An airport's website would be a ], which can be used for {{tq|straightforward, descriptive statements of facts}} like whether that airport has certain flights. – ] <small>(])</small> 10:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Carry on. - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">'']''</span> 22:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ok @] is convinced that only indepandant sources are allowed and not official sites. He is removing peoples updates that have been gotten from official sites and replacing them with old outdated links. ] (]) 10:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::<small>another 12 added, fyi ]</small> 06:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well if that is the case then he's incorrect. – ] <small>(])</small> 10:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Are you a moderator on Misplaced Pages? You can confirm so we can use airport websites and airline websites as sources ] (]) 10:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| :::::That's not how it works I'm afraid. We don't have moderators. If you have a disagreement with {{u|The Banner}} (courtesy ping) about a specific source, you should discuss it with him and other editors on the article's talk page and ] based on policies like ] and ]. – ] <small>(])</small> 10:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Another way to breakdown current numbers as SMcC 10 March !vote #58 | |||
| ::::::Ok thanks for your clarifications anyway ] (]) 10:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *1. | |||
| ::::In fact, it was a case where an independent source was just removed. No replacement, just removal. And an unsubstantiated claim that the source used was incorrect. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 15:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| **A. - 19 | |||
| :::::If a source is removed, usually the information the source supports should also be removed. The removal constitutes a challenge to the source and the information. If someone wants to restore it, the person adding it should include a different reliable source. Or, discuss on the talk page why the removed source is reliable after all. ] (]) 15:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| **B. - 4 | |||
| **C. - 13 | |||
| **D. - 14 | |||
| *2. | |||
| **A - 18 | |||
| **B. - 1 | |||
| **C. - 21 | |||
| **D. - 6 | |||
| <small>] 02:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ---- | |||
| :If we're compiling !votes, it might be useful to have one set of totals for each question instead of tallying up all of the possible combinations. –] ] 23:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::Go right ahead. I just listed what was there, !votes that were the same were added up, !votes that had any variation or distinction, were noted separately. It's by no means meant to be official, final or even determinative. It's just for anyone curious to see what kind numbers are in so far. Cheers - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">'']''</span> 04:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *If we are going to have a running total, lets have one that actually provides some consolidated information. If a !vote noted a numbered option I counted it in the totals so they may add up to more than the total number of !votes. Also, I used {{u|Thewolfchild}}'s counts above for the numbered options. {{pb}} In the format {{red|n {{=}} A/B/C/D}}: {{red|1 {{=}} 8/4/11/6}} and {{red|2 {{=}} 5/1/7/8}}. However several !votes contain nuance that boils down to ''"it depends"'' and ''"follow the sources"''. Ten of the ''Opposes'' say ''"existing guidelines are enough"'' however they are split 5/5 by what they consider ''"existing guidelines"''. Of the ten ''Oppose'' five seem to refer to existing WikiProject Firearms guidelines, while five seem to indicate the need to follow general Misplaced Pages content guidelines on a case by case basis ie pretty much the 'D' option. ]] 15:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| **Well voting is voting, so not suppose to be that meaningful -- but yes, clearly a central issue being commented upon is application or rejection of the project guideline as any-kind of useful restriction. ] (]) 16:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *::Yes, I would say the key take away is the repudiation of the local consensus project guidelines insomuch as they essentially pre-define ] and place an improper presumption in the way of neutral consideration of what to include based on the sources/reporting in each case. ]] 16:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *Just want to opine, as usual, that tallying votes while a discussion is ongoing is not helpful. As it is ''not'' a vote, keeping a running tally apart from when it's being closed serves only to influence subsequent participants (not saying it was done intentionally here, but a gloss of previous opinions on a complex issue does have an impact on decisionmaking, whether we want to admit it or not). It could also discourage participation by making it appear as though it's in some closing phase. Recommending to collapse this section if you wish to retain it, but there's no policy basis that requires abiding this request. :) — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 23:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| * Why tally combinations of 1 and 2? I don't think there's any utility in that. Please just tally votes for 1 and 2 separately. ] (]) 03:10, 3 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::What is a simple breakdown of the !votes, as they were posted. Feel free to break them down, split them up, count them any way you like. - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">'']''</span> 06:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for collapsing this. I was going to do it myself the moment I saw such a section existed. Creating these is patently disruptive and a form of ] by trying to steer people's !votes. Don't do it. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 12:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {{cob}} | |||
| ====Discrepancies==== | |||
| There seem to be a few discrepancies in a recent to the tally. I count the following: | |||
| *11 for '''1A''' (instead of 19) | |||
| *18 for '''1C''' (instead of 13) | |||
| *7 for '''2A''' (instead of 18) | |||
| *27 for '''2C''' (instead of 21) | |||
| I'm sure there's a reason for this, such as adding ambiguous !votes like "oppose" to one of the categories. {{ping|Thewolfchild}} could you explain your methodology? –] ] 04:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, first off, I did say; {{tq|It's by no means meant to be official, final or even determinative.}}. It's just a rough tally. but that said, when people simply wrote "oppose", what do you think they mean? And where would you count their !votes? - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">'']''</span> 05:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Thewolfchild}} please explain how you arrived at these numbers. –] ] 23:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:20, 19 January 2025
| Policy | Technical | Proposals | Idea lab | WMF | Miscellaneous |
 Archives (index) |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Page size
Please see Misplaced Pages talk:Village pump (proposals)#Looking for some unofficial clerks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Trying to figure out of this is the appropriate venue for a discussion
So I'm here trying to figure out where to hold s discussion that spun off from an ANI thread on how information about active tropical cyclones (Hurricanes, typhoons etc) should be handled per WP:NOTNEWS and MOS:CURRENT. Between my own comments and those from others, there have been at least four different suggestions on where to hold the discussion, with the latest suggestion being this page. This page seems to be more about changes to policy but some discussions here do seem to be about application. Where ever it is held, this discussion would involve changes to long-standing practices within a WikiProject. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Proposal to change the header
The header for this Village pump begins with these words:
The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss already proposed policies and guidelines and to discuss changes to existing policies and guidelines.
A few editors seem to think that this means editors should not discuss changes to existing policies and guidelines on the talk pages of those same policies and guidelines (the talk pages that say, at their tops, things like "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the What Misplaced Pages is not page").
If you are interested in this, please see Misplaced Pages talk:Policies and guidelines#Venue. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Adding Official Sources as references
Please advise on why official sources such as Airlines and Airport websites cant be used when adding information to Misplaced Pages.
Using Indepandant sources provides incorrect information. For example using a outdated article from clare fm saying Shannon- Paris is ending in October. Which is wrong because the official Airline and airport site state its NOT.
Misplaced Pages is supposed to be reliable source providing old links like that is wrong and unrelibale. Please allow official sites be used AVGEEK7813 (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- They can? An airport's website would be a primary source, which can be used for
straightforward, descriptive statements of facts
like whether that airport has certain flights. – Joe (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)- Ok @TheBanner is convinced that only indepandant sources are allowed and not official sites. He is removing peoples updates that have been gotten from official sites and replacing them with old outdated links. AVGEEK7813 (talk) 10:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well if that is the case then he's incorrect. – Joe (talk) 10:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Are you a moderator on Misplaced Pages? You can confirm so we can use airport websites and airline websites as sources AVGEEK7813 (talk) 10:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's not how it works I'm afraid. We don't have moderators. If you have a disagreement with The Banner (courtesy ping) about a specific source, you should discuss it with him and other editors on the article's talk page and seek a consensus based on policies like WP:V and WP:PSTS. – Joe (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ok thanks for your clarifications anyway AVGEEK7813 (talk) 10:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's not how it works I'm afraid. We don't have moderators. If you have a disagreement with The Banner (courtesy ping) about a specific source, you should discuss it with him and other editors on the article's talk page and seek a consensus based on policies like WP:V and WP:PSTS. – Joe (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- In fact, it was a case where an independent source was just removed. No replacement, just removal. And an unsubstantiated claim that the source used was incorrect. The Banner talk 15:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- If a source is removed, usually the information the source supports should also be removed. The removal constitutes a challenge to the source and the information. If someone wants to restore it, the person adding it should include a different reliable source. Or, discuss on the talk page why the removed source is reliable after all. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Are you a moderator on Misplaced Pages? You can confirm so we can use airport websites and airline websites as sources AVGEEK7813 (talk) 10:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well if that is the case then he's incorrect. – Joe (talk) 10:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ok @TheBanner is convinced that only indepandant sources are allowed and not official sites. He is removing peoples updates that have been gotten from official sites and replacing them with old outdated links. AVGEEK7813 (talk) 10:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)