Talk:Rio Turbio Airport

Removal of VOR-DME information - trivial and pointless, or relevant to the article?

A cited source about the Puerto Natales VOR-DME was removed from this article as part of a suite of similar removals from other airfields by a determine IP editor. I have reverted it and ask that involved editors discuss whether such content is indeed trivial or pointless. I'm afraid this is outside of my subject area, and I only encountered this and many other similar deletions as part of monitoring Recent Changes. Courtesy ping to Cptmrmcmillan Nick Moyes (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't bother to explain what actual value you perceived in the text I removed. You also made a false accusation of vandalism against me which you have yet to apologise for. But let's look at the problems that you seem unable to appreciate:

The Puerto Natales VOR-DME

Problem number one. Acronyms must be defined.

(Ident: PNT)

Problem number two. This text should not be in bold face.

is located 11.5 nautical miles (21 km) southwest of the airport.

Problem number three. The article is about the airport. Something 20km away is not relevant.

The El Turbio non-directional beacon (Ident: BIO) is located on the field.

See problem number two. And the overarching problem number four is, this is utterly dull trivia. Who the hell is supposed to care about what navigational beacons there are? I have only ever seen this cruft in articles about Argentinian airports. Also ridiculous are the details of how many parking spaces there are, and the surface areas of terminals. This material has been added by someone with no idea about what an encyclopaedia article should cover. From the frequent glaring language errors it's also obvious that they don't speak English.

You also put back an external link to openstreetmap. Are you aware that the coord template provides the coordinates at the top right, which link to a number of reputable map sources, and thus a link to a single map source in the external links is both unnecessary and biased? 51.7.34.168 (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor. I am sorry if you did not like receiving a third notice on your talk page not to remove content without leaving an explanatory edit summary. Continued, unexplained removal of content is regarded as vandalism here, so I see nothing further to explain. But your suggestion that I might be 'sick-minded' is a tad WP:UNCIVIL, don't you think?. Anyway, I do thank you for now heeding my request to explain all your subsequent content deletions from numerous airfield articles today, so that others can assess the reason for your edits by means of that summary (and not conclude you are acting like a vandal, and simply blanking content out of mischief).

Yes, I agree with you: acronyms (even wikilinked ones, like VOR-DME), are best defined for the benefit of users, but that's no justification for deleting factual statements and citations, whether they're airfield navigational radio beacons, or anything else, is it? Nor is the deleting of bolded content justifiable, per se - you can fix formatting yourself if the abbreviation isn't a synonym for the article title.

Whilst recognising my own lack of knowledge in the subject, I would disagree that distance from a subject is inevitably irrelevant. By way of example, my home town's wartime aircraft factories had anti-aircraft batteries installed up to 40 miles from them in order to protect them from German aerial attack, and mention of their location to protect the factories would indeed by very relevant. Would not an airfield radio beacon be just as relevant to an airfield article?

As for "Who the hell is supposed to care about what navigational beacons there are?" - that is precisely why I asked you on your talk page to stop your numerous deletions and explain your edits, but instead you simply ignored my request, blanked my posts (here, here, here, here, and here), deleted my warning notices (which you're entitled to do) and declined to engage with me (I now see you replied, but immediately deleted it], so I didn't see your edits) until I was forced to warn you that I was sufficiently concerned about your rapid content deletion that I would consider raising the matter at WP:ANI. So again, I thank you for stopping and responding here.

Now, please do not revert or continue with your rapid deletions until a consensus on content validity has been reached with other editors. There is no rush to remove stuff here. It could be that raising the matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports could help reach consensus from subject enthusiasts. So please see my post there. I am quite happy to defer to consensus - my only concern in engaging with you is to halt what I perceived as unexplained content removal and to seek an understanding for your actions. If others think they're fine - please go ahead once that consensus has been reached, but not before.

And finally, no, I wasn't especially aware that, whilst reverting your deletions, a map link might have been duplicated. Concern over that seems quite trivial to me compared to what (and again I repeat my lack of knowledge on this topic) seemed like inappropriate removal of valid and cited content in otherwise very short stub articles on numerous airfields. Please remember that being civil, rather than belligerent, is a much nicer way for editors to cooperate here. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 51.7.34.168. You wouldn't be related to User talk:51.7.229.224 by any chance? Editing 207 articles in 71 minutes must be a Wikipedia record. But on to your points:

I have a wikilink on VOR-DME for anyone who wonders what it is. "Very high frequency OmniRange - Distance Measuring Equipment" is what the acronym stands for. Too much typing for me, and I doubt many younger pilots know the full name. The identifier "PNT" is the name broadcast for that station, not an acronym. The availability of navigation aids to an airport is important, and their distance from the airport determines their value. If you don't understand something about an airport or aviation, that's quite all right, but please don't make that assumption of all wiki readers.

Yes, the coords link atop the page links to maps. When you get there, you can check all twenty choices and pick the one you think I believe shows the things I wished to show the wiki reader. But you'd only be guessing. I chose Open Street Map for this, and most other airports because I think it does the best job. For some airports I have chosen Bing or HERE maps, but in this case OSM is best.

The airport identifiers RYO and SAWT are bold. That's why identifier BIO is in bold. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 06:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a wikilink on VOR-DME for anyone who wonders what it is. - you have? The encyclopaedia has an article, which is completely unsourced. You don't appear to have contributed to it at all.
Too much typing for me - if you're that lazy, don't edit Wikipedia. Expecting other people to fix your laziness is simply disruptive.
and I doubt many younger pilots know the full name. - if pilots don't even know what the acronym means, what are the general readers who this encyclopaedia is for meant to make of it?
The identifier "PNT" is the name broadcast for that station, not an acronym. - yes, I know. Who said anything else?
The availability of navigation aids to an airport is important - to whom? It is not even mentioned in the vast majority of articles about the busiest airports in the world, so why is it important for obscure airfields in Argentina?
and their distance from the airport determines their value. - to whom?
I chose Open Street Map for this, and most other airports because I think it does the best job. - not a valid reason. one should generally avoid providing external links to sites already linked through Wikipedia sourcing tools. Map sources can be linked by using geographical coordinates 51.7.34.168 (talk) 08:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The airport identifiers RYO and SAWT are bold. That's why identifier BIO is in bold. - not a valid reason. Are you familiar at all with the manual of style? 51.7.34.168 (talk) 08:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]