| Revision as of 23:45, 17 May 2005 editBurgundavia (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,715 edits →Runway← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 05:08, 11 April 2023 edit undoPaine Ellsworth (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors255,923 edits add rcat templates |
| (188 intermediate revisions by 43 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
#REDIRECT ] |
|
Archive:] |
|
|
This has gone live, so all the old comments have been archived. ] 08:25, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
==Ideas== |
|
|
===Renaming=== |
|
|
''Moved from Template talk:Airport infobox''' |
|
|
*Should we rename "distance from town" and "nearest town" to "distance from community" and "nearest community"? ] 11:24, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC) |
|
|
**I like this idea ] 11:34, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
**We might thus also want to add a "primarily serves" or something similar. ] 11:38, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
***From my comments on ] and ] talk pages. |
|
|
::''"The only thing that I am disagreeing with you on, is the "Distance from" section. Town is erroneous terminology. ] is universally understood, though admittedly in more common usage in the ] countries. As for it being too technical, I think that is negligible, especially within an infobox citing ICAO/IATA. ] is the correct term, and one that is applicable to all airports. Anyone who requires clarification can follow the link (the point of a wiki) and see its near-equivalent 'downtown'."''--] 15:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Agreed. Ironically, plenty of airports are located within city boundaries, and hence, that field would have indicated 0km! |
|
|
::::I think that the distance is usually to the city centre -- LaGuardia, for instance, is listed in the AFD as "4 E" (i.e. 4 nautical miles east) of New York City, which is more-or-less the distance to Manhattan. In cases where the airport is in the centre, you can use "ADJ" (adjacent) or "0 km" or even just leave the field out. I think that this is a pretty useful field -- every airport is officially associated with some community, somewhere (even if it's only a few cabins), and the ''Canada Flight Supplement'' and US ''Airport/Facility Directory'', at least, provide this information for every single airport listed.] 17:36, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC) |
|
|
:::However, the current infobox is serves, which may not be the closest community. This information is useful, just probably not in the infobox ] 18:31, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:D--] 15:17, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::What about just dropping the distance from the infobox altogether. It can be mentioned in the article and it is probably better explained in a sentence anyway. ] 16:25, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:I'm not opposed to doing that. I removed it from the infobox I put on the Australian airports. For some airports, the distance from the ] is a notable feature, for others, it's insignificant.--] 16:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::Ok, I am going to gut it. ] 16:42, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Removed, but the following pages need to have the data merged back into the article. Please strike as they are done: <strike>]</strike>, <strike>]</strike>, <strike>]</strike>], ], ], ], ], ], ]. ] 16:48, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Er hold on....why gut it? It was actually quite a useful info as far as basic airport info is concerned. Btw, you sure there are only so few airports with that field?--] 17:17, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Thus are the only airports that have got the infobox so far. I am removing it from the infobox, not from the article. ] 18:31, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Before we remove them...why not discuss this further first? I do not think it is a wise idea to remove them. Distance from the city centre is quite a basic and commonly found info, and it does speak volumes on the accesibility of an airport to its catchment area.--] 18:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The major is, distance to what town? That must be made very clear, and that is why a sentence is better. For instance ] serves Montreal, but is not located anywhere near it. It is located in ]. Should the distance be to Mirabel or to Montreal? ] 18:49, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::::But that isnt uncommon. Many airports are located outside a major city, and often takes the name of the town it is located in or is nearby to, yet was built to serve that major city primarily (Narita: Tokyo, Gatwick: London, Tacoma: Seattle are just a few egs), and it does not really present a major case for concern. But for clarity's sake, how about in the format "Distance to CBD: XXX km/miles (City name)", which can then also allow us to add multiple city distances since some (thankfully not many) airports do serve several large cities at once?--] 19:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The point of a infobox is fast information. There are no infoboxes, that I have seen anyway, that have so much wordage in them. ] 20:06, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::::That's a good point about possible confusion. The ''Canada Flight Supplement'', unfortunately, is inconsistent about this. For example, for ], it gives the distance to ] rather than the distance to ]; for ], on the other hand, it gives the distance to ] rather than ]. I looked at a few more examples, and they're all over the place like that. Still, I think that this is information that the average (non-pilot) reader will care about, much more than runway lengths and headings. Perhaps there's some way to make it work, even if we have to measure some distances ourselves. ] 21:30, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I had an idea regarding this. We could say "Distance from $town", and then fill it in as part of the template, to make it clear where we were referring to. ] 23:36, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:Generally, I would think that "distance from CBD" would refer to the city airport serves, regardless of where it's located. But if the aiport is large enough and serves two cities, I like ] idea of "Distance to CBD:" and then "XXX km/miles (City name)" for both cities. Such cases are rare in any case, and this seems an understandable clarification.--] 01:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Redirect category shell| |
|
===Airport type=== |
|
|
|
{{R from move}} |
|
*We need need a standard set of types. I propose the following: Commerical vs. General Aviation / Public vs Private / Domestic vs. International, where each airport would have one of all three of those types. ] 11:34, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{R from remote talk page}} |
|
*Proposal from ] -> 3 types: Public|Private|Military, Aiport of Entry:Yes|No and Scheduled Commercial Yes|No |
|
|
|
{{R with history}} |
|
**2 issues.One is with space, fitting all the words. Second is with AoE. I happen to understand that as my brother is a pilot, but not many others will, IMHO. ] 12:07, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{R from subpage}} |
|
**hmm...I am not sure if "Commercial vs. General Aviation" is a good choice of words, especially with the later? There are too many grey areas. "Public|Private|Military" sounds better and more precise?--] 12:21, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
::As long as "]" links to a Misplaced Pages article, it shouldn't cause any confusion (alternatively, we could use something like "Customs?"). I don't think that "Scheduled Commercial" is a good idea, because, again, commercial aviation is much bigger than just passenger service (and you can also have scheduled cargo flights); "Scheduled passenger service" is really what we're trying to get at here -- in other words, can you buy an airline ticket to this airport? ] 13:32, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I prefer "Commercial"|"Private"|"Military".--] 15:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::::What do you mean by a "commercial" airport, though? Do you mean that it has any kind of commercial aviation (say, crop dusters or banner tow), or only that it has scheduled passenger service? If it's the latter, how would you classify the tens of thousands of civilian, public airports in North America alone that do not have scheduled passenger service? We're best sticking with the standard terminology, I think: "public", "private", and "military". That's the way they're described in official publications and charts that we'll have to use as sources. ] 17:30, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Statistic Infobox=== |
|
|
*As stats has been moved out of the main infobox, a stats infobox needs to be created. I propose an inline, rather than on the side, one. ] 11:37, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Suggested changes == |
|
|
|
|
|
# remove year opened (the information is not easy to find for smaller airports, and probably belongs as part of a history section anyway). |
|
|
# add elevation above sea level. |
|
|
It might also be interesting to flag whether the airport is towered, if there's room. ] 12:26, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC) |
|
|
**Year opened is pretty easy one, as most airports have an official opening and an actual one. Elevation might be good. ] 15:38, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Proposed Changes == |
|
|
|
|
|
I have looked at all the suggestions here and I have come up with a set of proposed changes: |
|
|
#Creation of stats infobox, to be inline with the article |
|
|
#Removing the date opened from the infobox, to be put inline of the article, as it is not a simple fact (sometimes there are 2 dates, official opening and actual opening) |
|
|
#Adding ASL |
|
|
#Maintain removal of distance, as this is not a cut and dry fact either (distance to where?) |
|
|
#Addition of the customs. This would be a simple yes/no. |
|
|
*Note, I am still uncertain as to the airport type naming, so I am leaving that alone for now. |
|
|
] 16:24, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:Sounds like a good idea to me, although the information of distance to a town it is ''named'' after (if an airport is named after or known to belong to a town) would be a good idea. Then again, town centre or town border? What's common there? -- ] 17:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I've added elevation MSL and made changes in all articles that use the template. I also removed operator from the template, since it isn't very important information and created a lot of red links (do we really need a Misplaced Pages article for every local airport authority?), and removed the year opened; I've left the parameters in the articles themselves, though, so the information is easy to put back if people want to. I like the other changes suggested above, but haven't made them yet; in addition, we might want to consider a field indicating whether the airport has scheduled airline passenger service, since that's something Misplaced Pages readers are likely to care about. ] 13:14, 2005 May 3 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I have the following comments on the infobox: |
|
|
:::*The headings should be sentence case just like article headings. Thus 'Type of Airport' would become 'Type of airport', 'Number of Passengers' would become 'Number of passengers', and 'Quick Info' would become 'Quick info'. |
|
|
:::*The phrase 'Quick info' seems weird. Information presented on a screen does not have speed. I am sure that there is a better phrase like 'Summary', 'Overview' or something else. |
|
|
:::*I would use symbolic format for the units. Thus 'feet' would become 'ft' and 'Meters' would become 'm'. |
|
|
:::Trying to be constructive. ] ] 19:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I have no objection to these changes. ] 20:10, 2005 May 3 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Runway == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm guessing the letters and numbers in the first 'runway' column, referrring to direction, are latitude or something relatively simple, but could they be explained? |
|
|
:] 17:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:Runway surfaces are named by their two headings (usually magnetic, but sometimes true) in tens of degrees. So a runway surface that extends directly east (90°) to west (270°) would be named "09/27", a runway that extends south (180°) to north (360°) would be named "18/36", and so on. I'm not sure how you can explain all of that in an infobox, but the key point is that it's just the runway surface's name, regardless of how it's derived. |
|
|
:Note another possible point of confusion: the runway ''surface'' 09/27 is actually two runways, runway 09 if you're landing or taking off eastbound, and runway 27 if you're landing or taking off westbound. They can even be different lengths if one of them has a displaced threshold. |
|
|
:Should we rename "Direction" to "Name" or "Designation"? Is there a useful article to link to? ] 23:23, 2005 May 17 (UTC) |
|
|
::Runway should mention it, if it doesn't it should be added. Either of those names work. ] <small>(])</small> 23:45, May 17, 2005 (UTC) |
|