Talk:Royal Air Maroc

Archived references not used in the article

--Jetstreamer Talk 13:26, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing 747-400

Planespotters.net is showing one 747-400 as active. Does anyone know if this is correct, and if so should it be added to the fleet list? 2601:640:C002:9300:20DF:878C:AABC:6D31 (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Planespotters is not reliable.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The aircraft is used for VIP transport.--2601:640:C002:9300:182F:FC2D:7A02:9A85 (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's used for VIP transport should it be included on the fleet list?--73.189.56.197 (talk) 14:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 5th and 6th 789s were originally intended for WestJet and thus have a different LOPA

CN-RHA and CN-RHB were produced for WestJet and have the WestJet LOPA. The thing is, I was on the WestJet version of their 787-9 last week, so I knew the layout.

Aircraft delivery records:
CN-RHA: https://aviation.flights/boe/787/64980
CN-RHB: https://aviation.flights/boe/787/64981
As you can clearly see, these were both meant for WestJet and have the WestJet lopa.

News article about their delivery:
https://simpleflying.com/royal-air-maroc-gets-10th-boeing-787-dreamliner/

WestJet's 787-9 LOPA can be found here:
https://www.aerolopa.com/ws-789 (Note that RAM doesn't sell premium economy seats, so those are counted as economy seats in the RAM article.)

Seat maps shared by fellow netizens:
https://www.facebook.com/nshaviation/posts/welcome-on-board-royal-air-maroc-newest-787-dreamliner-the-cn-rhathoughts-of-the/988307399994180/
https://www.reddit.com/r/oneworld/comments/1hbtfho/whats_this_seats_configuration_on_royal_air/#lightbox

Of course I'm aware that none of these are authoritarian sources, but it's frustrating that wrong information gets to live on the page despite having no citations to back it up.

— Jefflin555 Contribs 14:52, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: simpleflying.com is a deprecated source and should not be used - see WP:SIMPLEFLYING. Also user-generated content from sources (WP:UGC) like facebook and reddit should also not be used. Can you find any more reliable sources to back this up? 10mmsocket (talk) 08:43, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
aviation.flights should not be used either as they rely their information on planespotters, which is not reliable.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:16, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted. Thankfully it was only used in one article and one draft and is now removed from Wikipedia. I'll keep an eye on it in the future. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:22, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about Airways Magazine and AviaciOnline? It's hard finding mainstream coverage because RAM is not a huge airline, and we are talking about just two of their planes. Why should unsubstantiated false information (the current article has no sources either) trumps accurate information?
https://www.airwaysmag.com/new-post/westjet-orders-boeing-787-9-737-10
https://www.aviacionline.com/royal-air-maroc-welcomes-a-new-boeing-787-9-dreamliner-to-its-fleet
Guys, the mounting evidence of the last two 787s being WestJet planes is overwhelming! Just go on FlightRadar24 and find a flight using these planes and try booking them on RAM's website. You'll see they feature the WestJet LOPA. Jefflin555 (talk) 12:06, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
airwaysmag is used as a reference over 300 times on Wikipedia and looks like it is a recognised/reputable publication. I have no opinion on the other site. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:15, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for verifying that. I made the corresponding changes to the main article. Let's see how long before it gets reverted again. Jefflin555 (talk) 12:27, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of access date parameter

@Jetstreamer I simply can’t comprehend why one would want to remove a useful parameter from a citation - you say that the archive date covers the date when the source was last accessed, but it doesn’t… that parameter indicates when the source was archived, not when it was accessed. And besides - why would you remove something genuinely useful from a citation? Danners430 tweaks made 16:16, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Both dates are the same.--Jetstreamer Talk 16:20, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That’s great - but if only one is present, how is the reader to know that the access date is the same date it was archived? There have been countless occasions where I’ve added an archived copy to a source months, even years, after the archive was taken. It’s useful info nonetheless.
Also, please be aware of WP:BRD. Danners430 tweaks made 16:22, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of WP:BRD, thanks for the reminder. On the other hand, templating me at my talk for this seems to be out of WP:ETIQUETTE--Jetstreamer Talk 16:29, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you don’t want templating, there are (ironically) templates and notices for your talk page which say so. And you’re perfectly entitled, as you did, to simply remove the notice. Danners430 tweaks made 16:32, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Royal_Air_Maroc