Talk:Roberts International Airport

message: If anyone wants to, one should get a photo of the terminal of Roberts Airport. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The new (original) terminal, or the defunct "new" terminal? =) I have both. I'll try to squeeze some time to upload whichever one you want and leave a note here for you to add them to the article. Alan (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Both would be great, Alan - Thank you very much :) WhisperToMe (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: In editing the Airlines and Destinations section, I noticed someone had placed a note that Brussels has only rights to Belgium and Royal Air Maroc only to Morocco, and not to add any other destinations. Although I hesitate to violate Wikipedia's original reporting rules, I have in the last two months flown from ROB to both FCA via AT and ROB to ABJ via SN, so I have to take issue with these notes and add Abidjan and Freetown as destinations served by these airlines, respectively. With a little research, anyone can verify these findings: check the airlines' flight schedules and then go to Kayak.com and search for ROB-FCA with AT and ROB-ABJ with SN ( I flew the SN route on a Friday night in August 2009, deplaned and connected to Air France). Thanks. Dfiner 04 October 2009 (UTC)
:Guilty as charged! You're right about AT - even though it only seems to be a one-way (going CMN-ROB-FNA-CMN), it should be listed and I have fixed my mistake. As for the SN flight to ABJ - SN itself does not show it as a bookable option, so I'm not sure (even though you clearly flew the route). Could it be that you can fly that leg only if connecting to elsewhere out of ABJ? Jasepl (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Traffic Rights of Royal Air Maroc & Brussels Airlines

message: Dfiner, thank you for your recent addition, but it has been removed. "Hardly" would be the type of words we avoid. More pressing, is that blogs are usually self-published, and the one used for a source appears as such, thus it fails as a reliable source. Try digging through Google News' archives or Google Books or even the databases you may have available through your local library to find published sources. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. "Hardly" can easily be replaced with "not" simply enough. As to the blog, I actually think this is a really intriguing situation. You're a much bigger Wiki guy than I am, so I am sure you'll win any debate as far as Wikipedia's guidelines, although I did read about reliable sources and although it definitely discourages blogs strongly, it does not rule them out 100%. And I think this circumstance is a strong argument why they should be allowed as sources in certain circumstances.The blog in question is an archive of scanned original route maps and First Day Flight covers published by airlines. This is exactly the same thing that Airchive (the source for the Pan Am information) does. Timetablist is a simple blogspot and Airchive is a fancy website. Unless Timetablist is a hugely elaborate scheme to invent false aviation archana, it is a secondary source lucidly exhibiting primary evidence that these airlines once served Robertsfield. But how else to report this in the article? If I could find another source, sure I'd use it. Believe me, it doesn't exist. No one wrote a book about the airlines serving Monrovia in the 1970s. But if Timetablist "fails," why has the Airchive source not been challenged and removed? Incidentally, this isn't the only example of historic and current airline destination information in Wikipedia that is sourced using route map and timetable images hosted by "self-published" websites. Again, people don't compile books of the stuff.  So if you think the article is more Wikipediac without the passage, go ahead. Frankly, this is a weakness of Wikipedia's guidelines which I find a ironic -- an icon of the internet era does not like other websites, only books. In reality, you can look at these old route maps or celebratory envelopes and know that an airline used to fly to RIA, but scan it in and put it up on a free website, and Wikipedia readers are denied this information. It is the nature of the source, not the veracity of the information, that is in question. Strange, if you ask me.Dfiner (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia does not discourage the use of other websites, just self-published ones (and as such, Wikipedia itself is not considered a reliable source and cannot be cited within Wikipedia). And the self-published thing may be a big difference between the blog here and Airchive. I don't know enough about the later, but if it is not self-published and has systems in place for attempting to ensure their info is accurate, then they would generally qualify as a reliable source. The self-publish rule is not absolute, but if you don't think people fake sources, well apparently you have not been around long enough. We just had a big brewhaha in the last week or so over an incident that involved a variety of issues with a hoax that included making up sources and even so far as making a fake newspaper article (photoshopped I believe) to send to Wikipedia to try and back up their story. To avoid these things we stick to published items from reliable sources. Now, as to the info, I know routes at least now are usually publicized by the local newspapers, and I would suspect the same back then. Try checking Google News' archive, and even Google Books as that often includes old magazines which could include a travel magazine that includes of the info. For destinations outside the US you could try contacting a WikiProject covering that locale and see if they might have access to sources. If you live in the US you likely have access through your local library to a variety of online databases that include old newspapers, magazines, etc. that you might check. This and a whole lot of other info would be great to have in the article, its just finding the right sources. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Route Map & Timetable Websites and Blogs as sources

message: The article uses "Robertsfield" throughout. But in terms of historic usage, was "Roberts Field" common?-96.233.19.238 (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robertsfield vs. Roberts Field