Talk:Felipe Ángeles International Airport
Latest comment: 6 months ago by 10mmsocket in topic Mass restoration of unsourced and poorly sourced content
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Felipe Ángeles International Airport article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | On 17 August 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved to Santa Lucía Airport. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
 | The following reference(s) may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
Requested move 17 August 2021
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
– Less confusing and concise names. They are not located in Mexico City. The proposed names are not new for the sources either Santa Lucía's might be moved eventually to Santa Lucía International Airport if it ever manages to gain that level. (CC) Tbhotch™ 23:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment – I'm undecided, will try to do some reading. At first glance it looks reasonable. I did find a style guide that seems applicable, although it's described as a "draft" and doesn't really suggest that either name is better than the other. Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Naming (Airports). GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose they are located near Mexico City, they need not be within the metropolitan borders. The English sources all refer to Texcoco as (potentially) "Mexico City's new airport". If Santa Lucía is built out, there will surely be a common name in the future; for now we should stick to the more descriptive name. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- @力: Texcoco was canceled and it is planned to become a public park. Santa Lucía's already exists as a military airbase. (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: WikiProject Mexico has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: WikiProject Aviation has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support, more concise and natural.TotallyAbrupt (talk) 05:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per power~enwiki. More recognizable with the city included, and there doesn't seem to be a clear common name. — Amakuru (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Mass restoration of unsourced and poorly sourced content
editPinging @Jenniepierce567 - why are you mass restoring a huge number of unsourced routes, even entire rows in the table without a single source, and restoring an unreliable source - WP:AEROROUTES? I've left numerous messages on your talk page, and they all seem to be ignored. Can you please discuss this? Danners430 tweaks made 21:17, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Please take a minute to look at the sources. Not sure how much more reliable it gets than direct from the airline or airport website operating the aforementioned routes. Jenniepierce567 (talk) 21:19, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- I've taken a minute - you've added one unreliable source (WP:AEROROUTES) and three (if I counted correctly) bare URLs to primary sources - which by the way goes against WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT which state secondary sources should be used. However, that's not why I'm reverting your edit - look at the edits you've been making... you've been adding multiple complete airline entries without a single source, and numerous individual routes also without any form of sourcing. Perhaps instead of mass restoring unsourced content, which is what you're currently doing, restore only the routes which you have a source for - the fact they were unsourced is why they were removed in the first place. Oh, and please, please format your citations properly using templates like Template:Cite Web. Danners430 tweaks made 21:23, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- I support the removal. Unsourced / poorly sourced content should be removed, and this includes that which is not supported by secondary sources. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2025 (UTC)