# Talk:Morava Airport

Hello!
There is currently an ongoing dispute about the sectioning of this article at User talk:Klačko. It would be great if you could weigh in!
Regards, JustARandomSquid (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@Klačko, let's move here so other people can weigh in. I still can't find any other sources for which military units are stationed there. This kind of exemplifies my problem with your edits, not so much that there's anything wrong with your sectioning, hell, maybe it's even better, but that nothing was wrong with mine either, and that we now have other problems, like I said before, if it ain't broke don't fix it.
But anyway, CambridgeBayWeather is kind of right, we both want the same thing. Strictly speaking, most joint military-civilian airports don't really draw too much special attention to the military part. The most I could find is this where it does list the units, but only as a sort of balance to listing Airlines and destinations. So the fact we agree that Lađevci Airbase should have a separate section is already huge.
I liked my revision because it led to more balanced sectioning. I feel like there isn't much material for a section on the airbase aside from history, so that should be included there too, and the history section should just focus on the civilian history. (Open to renaming it something else, like 'civilian developments', or something along those lines.) I'd already added to the airbase section in my revision information about all the units stationed there that I could find sources for, so in your revision the section is either unsourced or redundant, because the same units are repeated multiple times.
All in all, I really don't know what to say. Maybe we can get some editors from WikiProject Airports to weigh in, see what they think? JustARandomSquid (talk) 07:58, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
@Klačko The very thing I was afraid of happening has happened, which is that someone's picked up my article for review while it still has an entire unsourced section. Even if your sectioning is better, is it really so good that it's worth the problems? So either you find a source for the problem section (the one that's there doesn't count, some of those units are stationed in Niš), or you give up and let me put it back to how it was. I hope I'm not being unreasonable here, and I'm sure my sectioning isn't so much worse that you can't just let it go, and it would mean a lot to me if you did — please?JustARandomSquid (talk) 07:30, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
All units listed in that section are stationed in Lađevci - since you claim otherwise, please name those which aren't... BTW, it's getting weird your insistence on all of this really. Klačko (talk) 10:34, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
@Klačko you added the information, you should provide a source too. Here's a source stating the 98th brigade is based on both airports, if I had a source stating which one was based where I would add it, of course.
As for it being weird, I totally see what you mean. It doesn't feel like a normal policy-based discussion to me, either, more like me trying to pin you down. I'm going to be completely honest here and argue the reason for that is that the arguments are very one-sided — I've provided the reasoning for my change, and, I know this isn't very polite of me, but most of your responses have an air of "what do you want now, I've done nothing wrong, leave me alone".
I think it's a shame we've got off on the wrong foot, because we'll probably run across each other quite often working on Serbia related articles, but I still don't see that I've been unreasonable here. I've made a good-faith attempt to discuss the changes with you, I've even given in and let your revision be the status quo while we do that, and all the discussion to do with your actual edits I've got from you beyond minimal responses is that it's "more structured and logical" your way. (I'm disregarding the thing about the military being important so it should have it's own section, because my revision also gave it it's own section, which was even higher up in the article than in yours.) I hope you can see why I'm not exactly satisfied with the discussion — I am fully open to discussing things, maybe even changing my mind, but I'm going to need more from you than just responding to the specific issues raised in each of my messages. Come on, convince me. Why is your sectioning so much better that it's worth combing through sources to determine which units are stationed where, if that wasn't necessary for my revision? I just don't know what else to say.
Regards, JustARandomSquid (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
@Klačko do you agree that we don't know which units are stationed where?
Also, to quote you:
"So definitely we should go backto the revision before, raise the issue on the Talk Page of the article and try to reach consensus there before making any edits."
I've started a discussion here, on the article talk page, and all I've got from you in the way of discussion here is calling my insistence on doing so "weird". I still don't see how I'm being unreasonable, but if I am, please explain how, and I'll be open to changing my behaviour.
Regards, JustARandomSquid (talk) 09:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
We do know which units are stationed at Lađevci Air Base.
Sources for all the listed units (except 353rd Reconnaisance squadron "Hawks"): [1], [2], [3]
As for 353rd Reconnaisance squadron "Hawks", which was re-established few years ago:[4].
Regards, Klačko (talk) 09:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
@JustARandomSquid: I would just look at other GA examples of sectioning out joint military–public airports since that is your goal. An example can be found at Fresno Yosemite International Airport.  ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️ 20:21, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

... that Morava Airport (pictured), Serbia's smallest passenger airport, has only one year-round scheduled flight — to Istanbul?
ALT0a: ... that Morava Airport (pictured), Serbia's smallest passenger airport, has year-round scheduled flights to only one destination — Istanbul?

Reviewed: N/A
Comment: I am aware that superlatives are discouraged, but as there are only three passenger airports in Serbia I hope this one is acceptable.

JustARandomSquid (talk) 10:28, 13 October 2025 (UTC).

The proposed hook is ambiguous as the phrase "one year-round scheduled flight" could be misinterpreted as a single takeoff per year instead of a regular service to one destination; consider rephrasing this to "one year-round destination" or "one scheduled year-round service". In addition, the image licensing is problematic, as the attribution "courtesy of Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Serbia" does not constitute a free license, and a VRT ticket is required to verify that the copyright holder has released the image under an acceptable license. intforce (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Added ALT0a. (I hope that's how you do it.) As for image licensing, the pictures were there when I started work on the article and I kind of just GA nominated it and hoped for the best. When it comes to a VRT ticket, not to speak ill of my fellow countrymen, but I highly doubt that a) User:Stevanb who uploaded the images  bothered to ask for permission, considering I see numerous issues with the copyright status of their images on their talk page and b) anyone from the Ministry of Defence bothered to answer even if they did. I've therefore gone ahead and removed the images and added ones with clearer copyright statuses.

Overall:  Approving ALT0a. Great work on getting this to GA! intforce (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2025 (UTC)