Up to you, but I'd just withdraw that RFC question about airline destinations. It has no hope of passing, and isn't the kind of question that the discussion was tending towards.FOARP (talk)09:03, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
well what was the discussion tending towards? The discussion grew arms and legs, and while there (to me) seems to be obvious consensus to do *something*, the discussion seems to have completely petered out… I tried multiple times to get in touch with a couple of the contributors to find out what the next steps should be, and I've been blanked…
@FOARP seriously, can we please have a quick chat about this. I’m genuinely at a loss here - if an RfC is the wrong course of action the what on earth is? There’s clear consensus that something needs to change, yet I’ve tried to move things forward and it’s instantly blowing up in my face. So what is the next step?Danners430tweaks made09:22, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The downside of the RFC continuing from the POV of anyone dissatisfied with airport destination lists as they are presently is that there'sinevitably going to be a stonking majority for them being kept that the advocates of such lists will use to justify everything they want to do regardless of whether it's completely against our PAGs, and as a reason to shut down any further discussion in the future. This was the mistake that was made with thatsilly double-barrelled RFC question early this year (which unified the advocates of airline lists and airport destination lists, but divided the opponents of them, with an inevitable result), and you can see people using that as a cudgel in this discussion.
Look at what people were suggesting in the discussion - some kind of explicit requirements regarding the sourcing, something about to what date they should be accurate for if the destinations change rapidly etc. etc. etc.
Close the discussion yourself usingthe RFC closure template as withdrawn per the Bad RFC !votes.
The proposer of the RFC from earlier this year tried to withdraw, but they did it too late by which time the people who had previously said the RFC was bad had decided it was good (because they had seen that it could be used as a opportunity to build up a stonking majority in favour of never changing anything). So just do it now.FOARP (talk)09:35, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get that done as soon as my laptop decides it wants to behave itself. As for next steps, what would your suggestion be - if I've understood you correctly, another RfC but with a question specifically worded to pull from the seeming consensus established in the discussion, if I can figure out what that may be?Danners430tweaks made09:37, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think there were probably 2-3 things that were discussed in the discussion. Roughly speaking these were:
Sourcing requirements for airport destination lists (e.g., has to be to a source gathering destinationsfor the airport, not just OR on airline websites)
Content requirements for airport destination lists (e.g., "major" desinations only, whatever that means)
Not having a list if the destinations can just be accomodated in a single sentence?
At least one thing from this list, with a bit of work-shopping with other editors to see if they make sense, should be OK.FOARP (talk)09:53, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I could probably figure out a way to put a few options in the RfC opening statement, making it clear that this was what consensus seemed to indicate in the previous discussion, and suggest that other options are welcomeDanners430tweaks made09:55, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd put up some options in a suitable place (can even just be a section here on your talk page) and ping the editors from the discussion to sound them out as to which they think are runners.
This is an area where there have been *a lot* of proposals over the years, few of which ever got anywhere. We can afford to take a bit of time to work on this.FOARP (talk)10:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aye not a bad idea… I'll similarly hold off on deprecating Aeroroutes when that discussion gets archived in a few days, to save too much going on at once. I'll put together a discussion here later on. Thanks for your assistance so far!Danners430tweaks made10:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think even just a "what to do about lists that are cited entirely to Aeroroutes and Routesonline?" discussion might be productive here.
Another idea might be requiring that, where covering something that changes rapidly, the list be sourced and accurate for a specific date. I know it's the manual of style, butMOS:LISTS might be a good place to take this?FOARP (talk)11:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well it would appear I’ve been beaten to it while recovering from this past weekend by doing absolutely nothing for a few hours… which I’m not complaining about!Danners430tweaks made18:18, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
.jpeg)
