Template talk:Infobox airport/Archive 3

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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  and the like - IMHO they have a much cleaner appearance and more consistent fonts/bordering.  DJR (T) 04:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for mentioning my proposed new  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  and website in . 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 Wikipedia airport articles. -- Zyxw 18:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: I've revised  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Can't it just replace the current version?  Vegaswikian 21:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean just copying the code to  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)
thread_title:  Infobox overhaul 

message: In the Airport infoboxes describing runways, I see sod and grass both used to describe surfaces. Are these surfaces the same? --Zippy 23:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it depends on the source of the data.  For U.S. airports, the FAA lists these as "turf". Links are often added for the runway surface, but turf is a redirect page, so it is usually linked as Turf or Turf. -- Zyxw 16:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Runway surfaces: sod vs grass 

message: 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 talk 09:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Use Template:Infobox Airport instead. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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  handles everything within a single template. -- Zyxw 06:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 talk / contribs 03:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ridiculous bloat

message: 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)
thread_title: Infobox

message: 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)
replies: text: The old infobox didn't have a opened either. You can see on a few pages where the line was put in but it doesn't show in the article. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So should we add it or no - what do you think? --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 22:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not bothered either way. There are ambiguities in airports that can make it hard to say when it opened. Look at RAF Glatton it opened in 1943 according to the article and then possibly closed by 1948. Somwhere along the line it was called Conington Airport and now operates as Peterborough Business Airport. So it's hard to say what the opening date is unles you put in something like "1943 (as RAF Glatton)". CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, Template:Airport infobox had an opened parameter on at least two occasions back in 2005 but it was removed each time (see this diff for an instance of it being removed). For the reasons mentioned above by CambridgeBayWeather, I think date opened should be left out of the infobox and placed in the article instead (preferably in the ==History== section). -- Zyxw 03:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opened param 

message: For quite some time now, I have always wondered why this template has zero mention on one of its most crucial components besides the runway...the terminal buildings. I would think besides the length of runways, there will be plenty of folks keen to check up on the (official) passenger capacities of airports, sizes od terminals, etc. We already now accomodate figures for traffic figures, and this would complement that well. Considerations to add airport opening dates can be used in the date of the terminal's opening instead. Information appropriate may include:
*Terminal name
*Operational date (either operational date, official opening date, or both)
*Floor area
*Handling capacity (millions of passengers for passenger terminals; metric tonnes for cargo terminals)
*Parking bays (aerobridges or parking stands)
See Singapore_Changi_Airport#Infrastructure_and_services for an example of this being applied in its own infobox. Would be great to see it becoming part of the main infobox, albeit in a condensed form. What do the rest of you think?--Huaiwei 07:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the main reasons for not including this is the lack of reliable sources and the length of the infoboxes for larger airports.  While I have included the passenger capacity myself, this number is quite often worthless.  How many airports base this on a 24 hour operation?  How do they adjust this for different size aircraft?  How do changes in usage as a hub affect passenger capacity?  The number of gates could be covered, but this frequently changes and announcements are not always made to the public. Bottom line, a reasonable idea, and don't do these as an infobox.  Another display option would be as a table which could look better since it would generally fit on one display screen.  That would allow the reader to see all of the available data at one time.  Unless this data was available for a large number of airports, I'd let it go for now. Vegaswikian 08:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We do not need to worry ourselves over "24 hours", "size of aircraft" and that level of technicality. The design capacity of an airport terminal are usually decided by the airport operator/owner/government, who tenders/intructs the architect/engineer to design and build an airport which can handle that capacity. That's it. This figure is far from worthless. Airport handling capacities are instrumental in airport design, and are as crucial as the seating capacities of a stadium, for example, even if the hours the stadium is in operation, and the size of people's butts may have an impact on real capacities. Design capacities can and has been sourced, so I fail to see where the concern is. The number of "major airports" having sources is a moot point. How many airports have helipads for it to be included in this template anyway? Plenty of airports do not have their own website either. Next, I mentioned parking bays, not gates. The number of aerobridges and remote bays are not changed so frequently that wikipedians can't catch up, and they can easily be checked either in airport layout plans or the like. If all else fails, even a satellite image can do the trick.--Huaiwei 10:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: While this might be useful information, I don't agree that it belongs in the main infobox. If placed in the article it can be explained in context (i.e. how the terminal capacity compares with actual usage). If the airport has a large number of terminals, that can be handled with a separate table, exactly as it is in Singapore Changi Airport#Infrastructure and services. Also, it is common for large articles to have multiple tables and/or multiple infoboxes (for a non-aviation example, the Arnold Schwarzenegger article uses three different infoboxes to describe various aspects of his career: bodybuilder, actor, and politician). -- Zyxw 04:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminals?

message: What about additional information such as frequencies for communications and ATIS telephone numbers, etc? Possibly just add them as a possible inclusion, and then leave it up to the article editor as to whether they're specified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dancraggs (talk • contribs) 01:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's getting to be too much, and hence why we haven't included it in this template. If you notice, the most technical we get in this template is the runway lengths and surface types. I think this is included because the general public may have a question about this information. But anything past that, it's probably a pilot looking for info for flight planning or such. In this case, they can refer to the links at the bottom of each airport article to it's AirNav profile. In general, we have to draw the line somewhere, and I think most of us have agreed that the line is good where it is. Please remember to sign your posts, thanks. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 05:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra information 

message: I have added a sandbox page (see Template:Infobox Airport/sandbox) for testing any proposed changes, plus a test case page (see Template:Infobox Airport/testcases) for viewing the proposed changes.  This is a standard format used by a number of other infoboxes, such as Template:Infobox Person. -- Zyxw 21:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added /sandbox and /testcases 

message: I am currently testing an infobox width of 240px in Template:Infobox Airport/sandbox, the effects of which can be viewed at Template:Infobox Airport/testcases. This would accommodate the recent system-wide changes that cause coordinates to be displayed with a globe icon that links to the new WikiMiniAtlas (i.e. ). For more on that, see the discussions at MediaWiki_talk:Common.js#WikiMiniAtlas, Template talk:Coord and meta:Talk:WikiMiniAtlas. -- Zyxw 22:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This change will not be made due to a proposal to move the coordinates out of the infobox.  See the following topic for more details. -- Zyxw 07:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sandbox test of new infobox width