Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RightSideNov (talk | contribs) at 17:42, 22 July 2007 (Opened param). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

1. June 2004 - Apr. 2005  2. Apr. 2005 - Aug. 2005  3. Sep. 2005 - Sep. 2006

Aviation WikiProject
General information
Main project page (talk) Announcements and open tasks (talk) → AfD record (talk) → Article alerts → Maintenance (talk) → New articles (talk) → Resources (talk) Notability and Style guide (talk) Showcase and Popular pages
Departments Assessment (Log) (talk) → B-Class / A-Class → Instructions Collaboration (NB: Inactive) (talk) Outreach department (talk) → Current newsletter → Contest (talk) Peer review (talk) The WikiEagle (talk) → Current issue
Project organization Coordinators (talk) Members (talk) Portals Project banner (talk) Project category (talk)
Templates Infobox templates → Aircraft begin infobox (talk) → Aircraft occurrence infobox (talk) → Airline infobox (talk) → Airport infobox (talk) → Aviator infobox (talk) → Company infobox (talk) Navigation boxes (talk)
Sub-projects Aircraft project (talk) → Engines task force (talk) → Rotorcraft task force (talk) Airlines project (talk) → Defunct Airlines task force (talk) Airports project (talk) Gliding project (talk) Aerospace biography task force (talk) Air sports task force (talk) Aviation accident task force (talk) Military aviation task force (talk) Soviet aviation task force (talk)
v t e

Centering Runway Surface

I'm looking at the template and thinking that the infobox would look better if the Surface column (runway_surface=) was centered on the template. What do you guys think? Thadius856 21:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Runway

Keep an eye out on this. I noticed that the runway lengths were wrong and when I looked at the template I saw this edit. It left the "ft" and "m" in the same place in the infobox but swapped the actual lengths around so in Singapore Changi Airport you had 4000 ft/13,123 m. I've left the user a note saying not to do it again but keep a watch out. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Metric

Why are imperial units given first preference over metric?

As per the manual of style they should be changed over so metric is first then Imperial/U.S. customery units second. I will change the template over now.--Clawed 08:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a bit more discussion on this and that it should be more by common usage. I used the AIP AD supplements to check several countries (not all) and found the following. The majority of countries appear to use metres for the runway length, except of course Canada and the US, so that's not a problem. However, it seems to me that the majority of countries, including metric using ones like France, Germany, Norway, Australia, UK, Denmark and New Zealand, all give the elevations in feet. Exceptions to this are Slovenia and China which both use metres for elevation, except for Hong Kong which uses feet. I have not been able to find much in the way of AIP's for Asia, India lists the airports in feet for both elevation and runways here but those are not the ICAO publications. Also at this time both icao.int and icao.org are not working so I was unable to see if they had any regulations set down. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that US customary units should be given priority over metric for airports US, Canada and all Carribean countries, including Mexico, as stated in Imperial units#Measures of length. For all other countries, with the possible exception of Australia — do they use metric or imperial, officially or commonly? — there should be a metric version. I don't see it being feasibly possible, at least for the time being, to offer seperate templates for countries that mix both units of measurement.

My proposal would be to move the current template from {{Airport frame}} to {{Airport frame imp}}, as well as all templates it links to, except {{Airport title}} and {{Airport end frame}}. We would create redirects, of course, to keep existing in-use infoboxes from breaking. We could then copy the template with only minor adjustments as {{Airport frame met}}. This would allow us to go through the current Special:Whattranscludeshere/Airport frame and change them over as required. Later, we could create country-specific templates, if we really needed to.

Of course, I'd be willing to do the dirty work of shifting the templates over and/or running through the transclusion list with AWB. thadius856_talk 20:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a good idea. If you look at United States the country infobox uses metric first. Also I think this has to be based on ICAO standards (if it can be found). Officially Canada is a metric country but the CFS and charts are all in imperial units. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps United States lists metric first, but that's only logical. Most people looking up that article are likely to be non-Americans, and hence, more likely to be used to metric units. However, those looking up United States airports are likely to be Americans, and conversely those looking up Singapore Changi Airport to be from Singapore and used to metric, for example. Does my resoning make sense? thadius856_talk 02:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it comes down to do we use one standard for all airports or different ones based on the usage in that country. If the first then "elevations - feet" and "runways - metric". If the second then we would need only three templates. The current metric one we have now, a second with feet first for both measurements and a third with feet first for elevations and meters first for runways. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Change to {{Runway}}?

I just noticed that the template was changed to metric first, only a few minutes ago. The reasoning in the edit summary is "per WP:MOSNUM". I thought we were still discussing this? I frown upon such BOLD reckless unilateral changes and I'd love to revert, but that would only by hypocracy. thadius856_talk 21:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason at all to change to metric first, or imperial first. Lets just leave it at whatever was used originally. It's a non-issue. Ta/wangi 21:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a few minutes ago but on the 5 November both the Template:Runway and Template:Airport infobox were changed to metric. In fact Clawed announced that he was doing that above. I've also changed the infobx template back for now. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed that Template:Runway title this had also been changed. I changed it back because with it being that way the runways list meters first but the actual measurment is feet. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Info boxes on USAF bases

Here's why I support and pursue the removal of the "serves" category on the USAF bases airport infoboxes: AF bases do not "serve" their nearest towns in the way municipal or large airports do. Apart from the fact that there is no scheduled passenger service into/out of AF bases (Space-A/rotators do not count for many reasons), the denizens of towns nearest to bases are not able to walk on to base and use the services of the airfield. AF bases are not there to serve the nearest town the way civilian airfields are. For this reason I believe there should be a separate infobox template for AF bases, or simply remove the "serves" line from the current template. Conn, Kit 18:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Airport statistics template

I have recently looked at some of the big airports. I was hoping to find an infobox on airport statistics (passengers/take offs etc.).I like the detailed runway information but I think that a lot of Misplaced Pages users are also keen to find some statistic data. By looking through the history of the template I found that the statistics were removed in 16. April 2005. In the talk page Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Airports/Infobox/Archive2 a statistics template was suggested. Have there been any activities I have missed ? Inwind 18:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Not that I've seen in the last couple of months. Which statistics were you looking to have? Passenger traffic? Number of flights? thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 19:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Google earth

I made this edit today based on the fact that in {{coor at dms|40|21|15.84|N|79|55|48.6|W|type:airport}} the coordinates show up both in the infobox and the top of the page, link to the same place and it looks ugly. I left a note for User:Paschmitts and he replied here. After reading his external link I wonder if it might not be a good idea to change the template to reflect this. People are going to want it and will keep adding it either in the infobox or elsewhere in the article. If we agree then perhaps one of the bots could update all the articles. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure my bot could do what you're asking, if I knew exactly what you were proposing and once consensus has been reached. Are you suggesting that we should change all {{coor dms}} templates in the infoboxes to {{coor at dms}}, or the other way around? (Or something else completely?). —Mets501 (talk) 16:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for not explaining that better, I was at the end of the shift and trying to get it done befor I went home. Yes, if consensus is reached, then I am suggesting that the {{coor dms}} templates in the infoboxes to {{coor at dms}}. Since I wrote the above I've gone home and had a chance to see how it works using Google Earth#Misplaced Pages and Panoramio mashup. I found it to be interesting enough to put aside my dislike of the duplication of the coordinate link in the top right hand corner. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can swallow my dislike for the repetitiveness of having the link in two places, even though I do like the Google Earth software. It's exactly the same reason why I went on a spree a month or two ago, chopping out all {{geolinks}} I could find with extreme prejudice, reformatting them into the {{coor dms}} format. thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 21:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This Google Earth FAQ says "Additionally, Google supports references to the {{coor dms}}, {{coor title dms}} or {{coor at dms}} templates within an Infobox template, so long as it is keyed by either coordinates or coords keywords." However this infobox does not include the word Infobox so I don't know if GE will find the coordinates. Maybe the way to avoid duplicate coordinates is to only use {{coor title dms}} and omit them from the infobox. – Paschmitts 02:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Picture

When the source image is less than 200px, the quality suck. Check Liège Airport for an example. 139.165.36.37 13:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I added a width parameter to deal with this issue back in September of 2006 (see Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Airports/Infobox/Archive3#Image size in Template: Airport image). I've updated the Liège Airport article to fix the problem by replacing:

{{Airport image|airport_image=liege airport logo.gif}}

with:

{{Airport image|airport_image=liege airport logo.gif|width=173}}

Zyxw 12:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Airport websites in infobox?

I was thinking it would be a good idea to have a link to the airport's official website in the infobox, but figured I'd post here before making adjustments. –Crashintome4196 06:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Closest town syntax issue

I stumbled onto the Airport infobox when disambiguating RCAF Station Gimli. The article name for the town served by the airport is Gimli, Manitoba (town) (because Gimli, Manitoba refers to the rural municipality). Needless to say, this doesn't look quite right when viewing the infobox on the RCAF Station Gimli article, and it cannot be piped because of the way the template is designed (and the pipe symbol has a different meaning within wiki tables).

I thought I'd mention this problem - not sure if it's worth resolving, though I think the display should be a bit cleaner than that. Mindmatrix 01:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I ran into the same problem with the infoboxes on USAF bases. I removed the "nearest town" line on the infoboxes since "serves" is not accurate in the case of military only airfields.Conn, Kit 20:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the problems that has been resolved in the new {{Infobox Airport}} template. It has a line like the current infobox labelled Serves and a new line labelled Location; neither is automatically wiki-linked. The format is one of the following:

• city-served = ], ]
• location = ], ]

Further discussion can be found below under Infobox overhaul. -- Zyxw 01:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox broken by recently added image and caption parameters

Template:Airport frame Template:Airport title |- | style="text-align:center" colspan="4"|

|- !align="center" colspan="4"|IATA: {{{IATA}}} - ICAO: {{{ICAO}}} |- !colspan="4" style="text-align: center; background-color: #4682B4; color: white;" |Summary |- !colspan="2" align="left" valign="top"|Airport type |colspan="2" valign="top"|{{{type}}} |- !colspan="2" align="left" valign="top"|Operator |colspan="2" valign="top"|{{{run by}}} |- !colspan="2" align="left" valign="top"|Serves |colspan="2" valign="top"|] |- !colspan="2" align="left" valign="top"|Elevation AMSL |colspan="2" valign="top"|{{{elevation_ft}}} ft ({{{elevation_m}}} m) |- !colspan="2" align="left" valign="top"|Coordinates |colspan="2" valign="top"|{{{coordinates}}} Template:Airport end frame

Not sure if anyone else has noticed this, but the airport infobox display has been somewhat broken since 4 February 2007, when another user added image and caption parameters to Template:Airport infobox. These parameters can be seen in use by viewing the article RAF Linton-on-Ouse (external link to version in history). The way this was added caused an extra empty row to be displayed in all airport infoboxes not using those parameters, as shown below the title bar of the infobox to the right.

I suppose this will start a discussion about whether the image and caption parameters should be removed from Template:Airport infobox, since the current standard (as per Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Airports/Infobox) is to use Template:Airport image. For now, I have fixed the problem by using the #if parser function, as already used for Airport type: {{{type}}}, Operator: {{{run by}}} and Serves: {{{closest town}}}. -- Zyxw 20:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox overhaul

Considering the clean and ergonomic look of many infoboxes these days, this infobox leaves much to be desired. I personally think it is in need of a massive overhaul in order to bring it in standard with many others currently in use for various subject areas, and indeed update the code to take advantage of many new features. I'm willing to undertake this task, but I don't really want to go ahead and do it if it's just gonna be vetoed. So - anyone else agree that some changes would be good? DJR (T) 00:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean something like the newer Template:Infobox Airport? That one needs to have the ability to have the runway length listed as ft/m for North America and m/ft for everywhere else as is done in the climate infobox. It also should have a line for the external link. I would leave the elevations as ft/m because for some reason most countries, including the metric ones still give them as feet. There must be an ICAO standard for that but I couldn't find it. The only other thing that should be included is a neat and tidy way of linking the references from the box. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That one is indeed an improvement - it uses many of the optional/#switch features I had in mind. I still think there's something to be said for a greater degree of standardisation with infoboxes like {{infobox city}} and the like - IMHO they have a much cleaner appearance and more consistent fonts/bordering. DJR (T) 04:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning my proposed new {{Infobox Airport}} template. One reason for the new template as mentioned above is the cleaner look of a single template when editing an article. Another is to incorporate new features without changing the current template. Features include: Same appearance as the current infobox, although runway column widths were tweaked a bit for a cleaner look. Supports the documented parameters of the current infobox, with a few name changes: Standardized on using hyphens as the separator in multi-word parameters. Reason: If a template expects "closest town" and the editor uses "closest_town", the field won't be displayed. Some templates deal with this by checking for both variations; I dealt with it by using hyphens. This also seems to be the standard used in CSS, i.e. "font-size", "text-align", etc. Renamed run by to operator, a closer match with the heading "Operator". Renamed closest town to city-served, a closer match with the heading "Serves" (more on this can be found below in the description of the new location parameter). Runways parameters use the format rn-number, rn-length-f, rn-length-m and rn-surface where n is a number 1, 2, etc. Helipads use the same format preceeded by "h" instead of "r". The template currently handles up to 8 runways and 12 helipads. These numbers were selected based on specific airports that required it (see NOLF Spencer and NAS Whiting Field - South) and can be increased if needed. Supports one image via the image parameter with an optional image-width parameter. As with many other infoboxes it also supports an optional caption to be displayed beneath the image (this was recently added to the existing template but has not been documented). Standard image links can also be added below the airport name (see Example 3 in the template documentation which shows an airport logo in the title box following by an aerial photo as the actual image). Does not include some of current undocumented parameters such as altname or nativename2 in {{Airport title}} and website in {{Airport infobox}}. These can be added if needed. New template section headings and parameter names: Heading: "Owner", parameter: owner. – This may be more appropriate than operator for some airports. Both owner and operator can displayed if required (see Example 3 in the template documentation). Heading: "Location", parameter: location. – "Serves" was intended to be the name of the major town or city served, but many airports are located in a different town. For example, Paris - Orly Airport serves the city of Paris but is located in the city of Orly. This is of enough interest to include in the templates (see Example 1 in the template documentation). This also addresses the issue of military airports, which are located in or near a city but do not "serve" it. This actually caused someone to remove "closest town" from the infobox in many of the U.S. air bases. Heading: "FAA", parameter FAA. – Since this is specific to the United States, it will not be displayed unless specified (unlike IATA and ICAO headings which always display). The intention here is to eliminate the current hack of adding " - FAA: XYZ" after the ICAO identifier. I'm not aware of any other country-specific airport location identifiers or "codes", but others can be added if needed. Hopefully after adding the other suggested improvements and some further review this can become the new standard infobox for Misplaced Pages airport articles. -- Zyxw 18:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggested the web site as I see several other types of infoboxes have them. I just thought that it might be a idea to have the time zone in the box as an optional. On the other hand there is the problem of the box getting far too long. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I've revised {{Infobox Airport}} to include parameters for the airport's website and for a footnotes section at the bottom of the infobox. I also incorporated CambridgeBayWeather's suggestion of having an option to display the metric runway length first, via the new metric-first parameter. For more information, see the updated documentation and examples at Template:Infobox Airport. Based on a suggestion from CBW, I've added parameters to display an optional "Statistics" section. Although this was not a part of the standard infobox, a number of airport articles incorporated it adding wiki table markup after the "Runways" section. Examples: Toronto Pearson International Airport with old infobox and the updated page with new infobox. Since these parameters are not yet documented, I'll mention them here: stat-year (optional) - adds a year or other text in parentheses after the word "Statistics" in the section header statn-header (stat1-header, etc.) - the header, title or label. Examples: "Number of Passengers" and "Aircraft Movements" statn-data (stat1-data, etc.) - the actual statistic associated with the header name This currently supports up to four statistics by replacing n with the numbers 1 through 4. The first statistic should always use the stat1-header and stat1-data, as this is what determines whether the "Statistics" section is displayed. A couple of things I'd like input on: Using metric-first currently changes the order of the runway lengths. Should it also change the elevation to display meters before feet? Since there is no standard for the "statistics" section, the template currently requires the user to supply both a header and data for each statistic. Should we standardize the types of statistics displayed and if so, what header names should be used? Any other comments on adding the time zone in the airport's infobox? The time zone is usually just one click away in the article for the airport's location; see Mississauga, Ontario for an example. -- Zyxw 07:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks good and works fine. I think that the changing of the elevation to metres should be on an individual country basis. Right now most countries, as far as I can see, use feet for the elevation and metres for the runway length. With the exception of Poland, who have both feet and meteres, every other European airport has their elevations in feet. But I haven't checked them all. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I replaced metric-first with two new parameters: metric-rwy for the runway length(s) and metric-elev for the elevation. See Warsaw Frederic Chopin Airport for an infobox with both of these enabled. The template documentation and examples have also been updated. – Zyxw 07:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this template considered complete enough to be actively used? If so, an announcement to users should be made to start converting over the airport pages. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't it just replace the current version? Vegaswikian 21:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean just copying the code to {{Airport infobox}} over the old code, because that won't work. The old version used multiple templates with differently named parameters. It'll just cause a big mess. For an example of a page being changed to the new template see this edit- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 05:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Help with the image

Referring to the image in the infobox in Senai International Airport, the default picture is less than 200px. I do not know the actual pixel, so I can't fix it as of in original size. Someone can help make it better? --Zack2007 14:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I just fixed it by changing width=180px to width=167. Note that the value should be a number, without the "px". To find the width of an uploaded image, go the the image page (in this case Image:Logo-senaiairport.gif), right-click on the image (I believe the Mac equivalent is hold "control" and click) and select "properties". An undocumented method that always displays the image at its native resolution is to use the width parameter without specifying a size:

{{Airport image|airport_image=Logo-senaiairport.gif|width=}}

-- Zyxw 23:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That helps a lot! --Zack2007 23:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous bloat

Is there any reason why someone needs to use four templates when using this infobox rather than 1 with many parameters? This template should be like other infoboxes and not require the use of other templates. Yonatan 09:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Use Template:Infobox Airport instead. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree - but there does not seem to be any official announcement. In fact, this is the template that is still recommended when creating a new article for an airport. --Pilotboi | talk 14:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the reason for the old multiple template infobox, my guess would be that it was a way to handle a variable number of runways and allowed making the image optional (it was created prior to the implementation of parser functions). As mentioned, the newer {{Infobox Airport}} handles everything within a single template. -- Zyxw 06:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup, and now we have to slowly change all 4000 articles from the old template to the new. I did 2 the other day, so 2 down, and a lot more to go.--Pilotboi 03:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Based on the above comments and seeing no dissension I have replaced the "Airport Infobx" with "Infobox Airport". At the same time I have, as you can no doubt see, moved these pages as well. I'm in the process of taking care of the links. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Opened param

I just realized that this new infobox doesn't have a Opened param (as in, the year the airport was opened). Was this left out purposely, or just forgotten? I think it's an important piece of info, especially for smaller airports that have an interesting history. Let me know what you think. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 17:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)