Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CambridgeBayWeather (talk | contribs) at 02:16, 26 February 2007 (→Infobox overhaul). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WPAirport Navigation

Archives

1 2 3

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)

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)