Template talk:Infobox Airliner accident

message: Comments and suggestions would be greatly appreciated. The international orange colour is used for the main template colour, because it contrasts with a clear blue sky and it is evocative of the flames and blood that so often attend aircraft crashes.
:I think the bright red (thats what it looks like on my monitor) is a bad choice. It is quite ugly, the infobox becomes a bright flashing red light on the page, instead of becoming an integrated part of the article. I think a simple grey, black, or white will do. Qutezuce 20:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely concur. I get a nasty red which makes it nearly impossible to read the text. I am changing to ffcc99 - if no one likes it, I am sure it will get reverted or changed to something else. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The toned down orange seems to work. It still retains some of the sense of flames and danger, but I think readability issues have to take precedence over symbolism. Thanks for that. What about the aircraft infobox for alternate aircraft (i.e. second or fourth)? The light grey colour for the text background now looks a little out of place. --Jumbo 17:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Question. Is there any way, either directly or via bot action, to have all crash info boxes automatically create a unified 'Aviation Accident' category? Even if the cat is 'aviation crash', that would be useful. Ideally the cat should be universal, without limitation for country, region or sector of aviation, but anything derived from the crash info template would be acceptable. Ideas or comments? Crum375 17:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Suggestion. Can we add coordinates in the coor format? In some cases the crash site is very small. In those cases it would be helpful to pinpoint it on the map. See Pulkovo Airlines Flight 612. Solarapex 22:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree and second the recommendation. We do need to decide on a standardized coord format and datum. Crum375 01:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Datum - UTC like Wikipedia signatures (although the exact point of time may nobe know, there may be an interval). Coord - I wouldn't limit the precision, but would encourage to provide a region and scale. The scale parameter is needed as a crash site area may be pretty large. Also, this page (http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/database.cgi) has a good list of attributes. Solarapex 04:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I would suggest that Tail Number be changed to Registration as the term Tail Number in the aviation industry does not always have then same meaning - and all the infoboxes I have seen so far actually have the Registration in this field.MilborneOne 21:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody has commented so I have changed tail number to registration. The term tail number is a colloquialism, the american FAA for example uses the term Registration or Aircraft Registration.MilborneOne 12:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tail Number 

message: Why not move the "Survivors" parameter to right after the "Injuries" parameter? Shouldn't the number of Fatalities, injuries and survivors all be one atop another. As it is now, the survivors is the last parameter. Just a suggestion.--MONGO 08:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some injuries or fatalities can be to people on the ground, while some are among the passengers/crew of each aircraft, in a multi-aircraft collision. 'Survivors' only makes logical sense when applied specifically to the occupants of one of the involved aircraft, as arguably every person on Earth is a 'survivor' of each crash. Crum375 12:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I also want to point out that some pages add a parenthetical after these numbers, eg "Fatalities: 10 (8 official)", in those exceptional cases where additional information is needed. -Heresiarch  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heresiarch (talk • contribs) 18:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parameter adjustment 

message: please change to a less-bright colour. I think white or some sky grey-blue should do better. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason we use the orange is because it represents the International Orange color code, which relates to aviation safety and accidents. IMO it reminds people that many (if not most) of these accidents are mostly due to violations of safety principles and are largely avoidable. The reason we and all other media present these safety articles is not only to describe the accident as a news story, but to prevent recurrence by exposing the safety violations. Having the brighter orange color that connotes safety helps convey that message better than some sedate blue, IMO. Crum375 03:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Having said that, if there is consensus for some other color I would accept it - this is not a critical issue. Crum375 03:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: according to the article on International Orange, the code is #FF4F00 so please let it be precise. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At least on my machine, #FF4F00 comes out fairly bright red, which is very distracting and makes the writing hard to read. So it seems we need the more subdued orange #ffcc99, as we have had for a long time now. Crum375 19:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone does not mind, the text within that orange color should remain black.  That "linen" color made it a bit difficult to read within the orange color. KyuuA4 19:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The symbolism that strikes me is that of the bright orange used on flight recorders. --GregU 19:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox colour 

message: I thought that 210px was too small for the image size.  Most infoboxes that I've seen allow images to be sized up to around 300px.  I changed it to 250px. Cla68 03:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image size

message: Is the word "ship" used for airliners also ? Jay 11:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ship name

message: Since this box is becoming more and more commonly used for all aviation crashes, including military ones (see B-52 aircraft crash at Fairchild Air Force Base for example), I suggest renaming to the existing  redirect, since when you look at the box in an article in edit mode, "Aircraft accident" is what it shows it being called. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I suggest, to prevent ambiguity but maintain accuracy, this is renamed "Infobox aircraft accident" or something similar? (we might want to mention incidents as well, though I personally feel that isn't nescescary). Blood Red Sandman (Talk)  (Contribs) 18:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another rename?

message: I’ve been thinking that this template should be combined with Template:Infobox Mid-air accident.  But I would also like to see some minor changes to parameters.
*I think that the “ship name” should be completely removed as most aircraft that crash do not have a nickname. It’s also difficult to find, and isn’t that notable.
*I believe it would be more concise to just have the origin of the aircraft (where it took off from) and the destination (where it was supposed to land). There’s really no reason to list the last stop-over, it would just be the “origin” if there were one. It would be better if these were listed as airports instead of cities.
*Perhaps there should be accommodations made for fatalities on the ground, but the existing format suits me fine.
As for the merger of the templates this is what I have to say:
*More than two aircraft can be involved in a collision (Ramstein airshow disaster) and it would be easier if it were possible to allow for more aircraft (maybe four or five, just in case).
*The new template would be called “Infobox Aircraft incident”. – Zntrip 14:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree in principle with most of the above. As for the origin, though, there are times that an intermediate stopover for fuel is made (ie, Gander) but that really shouldn't be listed as the origin, as it's not the point of origin for most/all of the folks onboard. Granted, this doesn't occur  that often, but I'd like us to be clear on that. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 20:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree, although we may need set rules for apropriate use of that stop-over thing if we decide to keep it. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)  (Contribs) 00:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't want the infobox to be cluttered. If you are looking at the article for the Hindenberg, you would know the name of the ship from the article, the infobox doesn't have to have everything. – Zntrip 17:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox won't be "cluttered" by including relevant information. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 22:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must say it doesn't take up too much space or look cluttered as-is, IMO. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)  (Contribs) 22:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: "The ship name is not relevant to the infobox" - that's a subjective opinion, and not a fact. I disagree, an I don't think you could make a logical argument to support it. AS for the name of the aircraft being n the article; so is most or all of the other information in the infobox. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 06:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don’t have time for this.  Of course it’s an opinion, but I gave you my reasoning.  You haven’t supported any of your comments other than saying you disagree.  Explain to my why the name of the ship is just as important as the other parameters and why it’s more important than things not in the infobox. – Zntrip 17:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, I'd like to point out an often overlooked issue. What about inter wiki? de is the same for both, es isn't. And every other language has only 1 version. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An easy way to do the merge would be to rename this article and switch all the pages with Template:Infobox Mid-air accident, since there are only 24. – Zntrip 06:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes and merger with [[Template:Infobox Mid-air accident]]