Template talk:Airreg

message: How about taking each article on a case-by-case basis and determining the best source in each instance, and the best way to reference. If the article already adopted some referencing style, that should be used for referencing the registration number, rather than mixing referencing styles.  --Aude (talk contribs) 14:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's another suggestion... let's keep the template but only use it in the .  External links are somewhat commonly used in infoboxes.  Again, let's also consider the best sources for the tail number on a case-by-case basis, favoring official sites but not ruling out unofficial sites (including airdisaster.com) if the amount and quality of content on those significantly outweighs what's available on the official site. --Aude (talk contribs) 14:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Though, aviation-safety doesn't allow one to incorporate the N-number in the url.  A traditional reference, with ref tag, is needed in this case. In other cases, the FAA or airdisaster.com might be the best sources, in which case the template could be used. --Aude (talk contribs) 15:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: Below is a list articles using the template, and which source they link to.  Overwhemingly, airdisaster.com is used, which I feel is inappropriate per WP:EL, WP:RS, and possibly WP:SPAM (due to the extensive advertising). I don't think this template is needed at all.  If anything, only links to official sites are suitable. --Aude (talk contribs) 21:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template usage:

message: Airdisaster.com seems to be pop-up city... this template is effectively sending spammers traffic. I move that the airdisaster.com link be changed (it's not much of a site anyway), perhaps to ASN. Dan100 (Talk) 23:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, we should more it to another site. – Zntrip 18:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As with my comments above, I still don't think we should link to the site in this manner.  I don't really think we need the template at all.  Just the ID number and no link suffices.  Even with book ISBN numbers, we don't link to particular sites (favoring one over others).  People can look it up if they want. --Aude (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam? 

message: Does anyone have good suggestions on how to make the template link to something more informative and consistent with WP:EL? --Aude (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made this change: If the third parameter is set to "aviation-safety", then  gives . The first parameter is the date and the second is the accident number for that date. Is there a consensus to replace links to airdisaster.com with these? Or can they complement airdisaster.com by listing both? –Pomte 21:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect the reason the template creator used airdisaster.com is that it supported using the N-number as a parameter.  Making the change to use the other parameter, would require manually changing each instance of where the template is used.  It's less than 200 pages, which is doable.  The reason for the change is that the airdisaster.com pages really fall under "what not to link to" in WP:EL, since I think many people find pop-up ads that circumvent popup blockers to be objectionable. Wouldn't be as bad if this link was listed in the "External links" section of articles, but these links are often placed in infoboxes and inline in article text. --Aude (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If they don't, we can do it ourselves manually by changing all the uses of . The articles should already include the date of the accident, so it's easy to identify the first part of the id (YYYYMMDD). The second part, the single number, can be found by checking the year list. Most often it will be 0. Since this doesn't use the same format as the other links in , a new template can be created for this purpose. –Pomte 02:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: This edit introduced four insightly cite errors which seem to persist to this day because "You can only use #tag:ref once as a list-defined reference" per Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no key#Issues and resolution. What can we do about this problem? Remove "#tag:ref" from the template? Add a parameter for multiple use in the same page? Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The error message is bogus; the issue is with using  inside . Perhaps we could add an option for using the old output format, for when the template is used inside references. Alakzi (talk) 11:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not exactly sure what the ref tag was trying to achieve on the Boeing 747SP article; if it was intended simply as a reference to the FAA registry, then it's now entirely redundant, as the Airreg template takes care of the ref tag by itself – see my edit there, which gets rid of the Cite Errors. The #tag:ref inside the template is needed in order to generate the footnote reference; it cannot be removed without disabling the whole template. By the way, I'm working my way through the 250-odd articles that use the Airreg template to fix any one that is broken. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to note I have been through a lot of the instances to clear an issue when it still has disaster in the template it shows in plain text "N707PAdisaster", hope I caught most of them. MilborneOne (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, MilborneOne. By the time I get to the bottom of my list, I should pick up all the remaining ones. --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite errors