Template talk:Aviation lists

message: Does this box really need to be stretched across the whole page? There's not a lot of links in it and it's a poor use of space. In some ways, the X-planes box looks better since it at least is reasonably sized for the amount of content. Askari Mark | Talk 02:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Full-width templates seem to be on the way to becoming standard elsewhere (cf countries and spin-off articles) but I agree that the space could be used more effectively, so have tried reformatting the template accordingly. Meanwhile,  might benefit from  and perhaps no bullets... (imagery intended)  Yours, David Kernow (talk) 07:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I disagree. Full-width fits with the standard design elements everywhere else on wikipedia pages, like the category boxes and top-of-page notices. While I've always hated that X-planes box, the full-width helps, even though with bullets it looks hideous. ericg ✈ 17:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Collapsed full-width  templates rather than the bunch of uncoordinated templates sometimes seen at the ends of articles seems a definite improvement to me... Meanwhile, however, the misalignment of the title in the titlebar is an ongoing issue (cf, for instance, 's talk page) so if you can spot what's been missed or can be fixed...!  Yours, David Kernow (talk) 13:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I totally agree with David - having three totally different templates at the bottom of the page, all with different sizes, is exceptionally ugly and makes the 'pedia look very unprofessional. ericg ✈ 04:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Is there a WikiProject or the like related to aviation...?  (I quickly scanned :Category:WikiProjects but was surprised not to see something...)  I'm just thinking where an invite to comment for some folk likely to have some interest might be lodged; I think we need more than three voices!  Regards, David (talk) 07:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft; "Aviation" is a portal. I'll pop the question in WP:Aircraft. Askari Mark | Talk 05:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a rough idea of what multiple non-full-page-width nav boxes look like: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Weaponry task force#AFV navbox. (Ignore the content and specific style, I'm just talking about the esthetic impact of their sizing. I don't care much for the specific style and I think the width might be wider for what we're talking about.) It does make them stand out and without the unattractiveness of different-width boxes. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Gumby" box 

message: They're ordnance, really. Askari Mark | Talk 03:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No complaints here if their link is removed; does/should it appear on the List of aircraft weapons anyway...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 07:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Missiles really be included in Aviation? 

message: An editor just made format changes without discussing them here, and I've put it back to where it was with a note to discuss it here first. I know there's been a discussion above about the merits of the full-width format, and in that discussion, the full-width format had more support, so I'm starting this thread to continue the discussion in light of my revert. Personally, since nav templates seem to be where other such templates are going, it's more standardized, and looks better than a bunch of varying-width templates at the bottom. Akradecki 15:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree with the sentiment of deprecating the use of "varying-length templates", I do think what Karl was trying to do was a step in the right direction (although I still feel the boxes ought to be standardized somewhere on the order of 2/3-3/4 page width, instead of full-page width). I also like ArfonOwen's use of a darker title background as the original color was very hard to see on my flat-screen monitor; however, the particular shade he selected is a bit too dark IMO with respect to the blue-font text, so something midway between might be best. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the CSS system to reduce the width to fit the test would be width: auto;  Would anyone mind if I made this change to the template?  Karl Dickman talk 04:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm okay with trying it to see how it looks, as long as you're open to changing it back if it isn't an improvement. Akradecki 05:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Never mind; width only works with tables; we'd have to abandon the  currently used, or else imprison the navbox in a table.  Karl Dickman talk 22:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change to collapseable/nav format?

message: We have put this template in every airline article where way more than half of the links are highly unrelevant. If you are looking at an airline article why would need to click on any of the following:
*Air forces
*Aircraft weapons
*Missiles
*Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)
*Experimental aircraft
*Notable military accidents and incidents
*Flight airspeed record 
*Flight distance record 
*Flight altitude record 
*Flight endurance record
-MarsRover 05:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This template is actually in almost all aviation articles for a purpose: it provides a highly effective way for a person seeking information on aviation subjects to at least get a lead on it. If the template is irrelevant to an airline article, then just don't put it in. However, don't deny the rest of the WikiProject Aircraft this very valuable tool. Akradecki 06:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, a template covering the entire spectum of aviation is too wide to be "highly effective". How about three templates (a) commercial aviation (b) military aviation (c) aviation records? It would make the links more relevant to the article. --MarsRover 04:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see some merit to that, but this template is so wide spread, I'd suggest taking this to the Projet talk page for a wider consensus first. Akradecki 05:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like MarsRover's suggested breakout. Askari Mark (Talk) 16:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I most certainly agree with Mars Rover and think this template is far too generic and ubiquitous and should be broken up. -- Allstar86 06:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This template should be deleted or made less generic 

message: Reading the discussion above, there appears to be a will to make this template stand out more. however, this is explicitly discouraged by the navbox template documentation itself, and I agree that navigation templates in general should follow a common pattern rather than trying to assert themselves. For now I've "genericised" this template to a plain ol' navbox. Chris Cunningham 15:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making this _more_ generic 

message: This change should be made in order to bypass a redirect.
The line in this template that currently reads:
|list3  = General Military Commercial (airliners) Deaths
should read:
|list3  = General Military Commercial (airliners) Deaths
because the List of accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft is a redirect to the List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft.  --SSBohio 18:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Cheers!  --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  --SSBohio 19:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request: ''List of accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft'' --> ''List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft'' 

message: request (suggest) title bar name be changed to 'Aviation industry lists'. --emerson7 20:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Probably only around half of these lists describe "the aviation industry" --Rlandmann (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur, and nulling editprotected for now, there doesn't seem to be consensus for this. --Stephen 23:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Aviation industry lists

message: Since I could'nt add anything in as the template is protected, can I request to add in the List of airshow accidents into the template since there are plenty of high profile incidents. Jay Pegg (talk) 11:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an extremely general and broad template displayed on many thousands of different aviation-related articles. The list of airshow accidents is way too specific to include here. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request: Accidents/incidents 

message: This template box needs article Civil aviation authority, with link name being "List of Civil Aviation Authorities"; the article consists mainly of a long list of civil aviation authorities alphabetized by country. --Mr Accountable (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Checked navbox and link was added. --Mr Accountable (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Link Civil authorities needs to be changed to  Civil authorities to avoid redirect. Unless there's some plan to make "List of civil aviation authorities" redirect into an article. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil aviation authority 

message: Bypass  "List of people who died in aviation accidents and incidents|Deaths" to "List of fatalities from aviation accidents|Deaths", as per navbox guidelines recommending against the use of redirects.
–Schmloof (talk · contribs) 00:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I do point out that probably even on the large navboxes, the 3 edits (your request, my edit and my reply here) will consume much more resources than the redirects ever will. In general it is best to only fix redirects when making other edits or when fixing terminology of redirects. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I should have been more clear.  The "no-redirect-in-navbox" thing is simply to embolden the link when on the relevant page, not as a server load issue (see WP:NAVBOX: Avoid redirects).  I should also have been more clear: the entry I was referring to is the last one in that group, regarding accidents, not the first one regarding general aviation.  Thanks! –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 21:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Schmloof, 30 October 2010 

message: There is a version in the sandbox: , which removes the link 'List of people who died in aviation accidents and incidents', because it is now a redirect to: 'List of fatalities from aviation accidents', which is already included in the navbox. Minor alphabetizing was also done. Please add this updated code to the template. Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: . Could you possibly write the documentation for this template? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, done! Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: Should List of accidents and incidents involving airliners in the United Kingdom and List of accidents and incidents involving airliners in the United States be added to the template? Mjroots (talk) 07:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Lists of accident by country

message: I believe that the List of firsts in aviation should be added to this template. Chienlit (talk) 09:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Would also like to see Homebuilt aircraft under "General".Verne Equinox (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: List of firsts in aviation

message: Can someone add this to the template please.Petebutt (talk) 13:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: -- I think that's too specialised a list to go here; maybe discuss this at WT:AVIATION or WT:AIRCRAFT and see what other people think? --Rlandmann (talk) 14:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of Human-powered aircraft]]

message: In the sandbox, there is a version that updates one of the page title changes, fixes formatting, and adds a few links that have been suggested here on the tlk pg. Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 15 August 2011 

message: Would someone please add Registration prefixes to the General list?  Thanks!
—Cxw (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request - registration prefixes 

message: Can an Administrator edit the lists relating to Aviation from this 
 
to this
 
ThanksPetebutt (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aviation lists 

message: (in China) was recently added to "Unmanned"
I do not see any reason to include this.  What is the purpose?
12.199.176.12 (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: the change was reverted .--User:Salix alba (talk): 10:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 17 September 2013 

message: The link from "Death toll" under accidents/incidents should be changed to List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities reflecting the change on the page which is currently linked. Thank you.
Godot13 (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!-Godot13 (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 24 September 2013 

message: Remove Su-39 link under Bombers/Attack. Sukhoi Su-39 does not exist on Wikipedia and links to the Su-25 page, which has a brief, but sufficient description of the Su-25TM variant, also known as the Su-39.
76.120.25.0 (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should currently be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. —  (t • e • c) 02:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: IP users can't edit protected templates; I can't even edit this one myself. However, there is no link to the Su-39 on this page. - BilCat (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

text: I think the user is referring to Template:Sukhoi aircraft. However, that template lists all known Sukhoi type, not just those with articles of their own. I've redirected the link to the correct section in the Su-25 article instead of deleting it. - BilCat (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 28 February 2014 

message: I would like to add List of aerobatic teams
Nathan121212 (talk) 10:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Jackmcbarn, I have just added it, do you think it could work? Nathan121212 (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Done —  (t • e • c) 12:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 27 March 2014 

message: Please replace
|group3 = Accidents/incidents
with
|group3 = 
as the latter is easier to read (see sandbox), especially when the overall font-size is smaller.
Sardanaphalus (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really a list - perhaps an ampersand would be more appropriate here? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Question: I agree it's not really a list, and was thinking about this.  I thought a line-break might look better, maybe with slightly shorter characters; or an ampersand; or an asterisk; or a pipe?  Maybe  &  which looks like "Accidents & Incidents"? —  (e • t • c) 13:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: * If not the dot via , I suggest  (Template:\). Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that looks better I think. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 1 June 2014 

message: Can we have Lists of military aircraft by nation added to the template? Maybe as Airforces (Aircraft)?
:Thanks.NiD.29 (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 10 June 2014 

message: Why on earth has this navbox been transcluded on thousands of articles, when, per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, it should only appear on the articles that are mentioned within?  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: By consensus it is used in all aviation articles as a replacement for links that were previously in the see also section and other templates, no real requirement that the articles have to be mentioned the nav box bidirectional is only a guide not policy. MilborneOne (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:Aviation lists/doc Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

text:  Can someone point me to this consensus?  --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: https://tools.wmflabs.org/templatecount/index.php?lang=en&name=Aviation_lists&namespace=10#bottom might help, a template doesnt get used 17,000 times without some form of consensus. MilborneOne (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't show me any consensus whatsoever, other than that a single project has decided to grossly misuse the function of a navbox.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

text: Rob Sinden "grossly misuse the function of a navbox" is a bit strong it appears to show a lack of good faith in others. MilborneOne (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overuse of navbox 

message: Should this navbox be removed from the 17,000+ articles that it has been transcluded on, except for the articles which are mentioned within the navbox? Rob Sinden (talk) 08:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the "one stray link" that you are referring to? This template is being included on every plane crash article, and many more articles besides that have little to nothing in common with the topics on the template. As Rob Sinden has pointed out, this template violates most of the guidelines at WP:NAVBOX, particularly WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. We are not proposing the deletion of the entire template, rather the removal from pages where it doesn't belong. Kage Acheron (talk) 04:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to link to a portal then use . DexDor (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: Should this navbox be removed from non-mentioned articles?

message: Is there a reason why the navbox includes a "Misc." group as well as a "General" group? Would it not be simpler to include "Jet airliners" in the "General" group? (Compare "Gliders" and "Rotorcraft".) Also, not displaying "List of ..." for this item would be more consistent with the other items in the navbox. (Checking before editing as I am not an extensive contributor to aviation articles.) Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misc. as well as General? 

message: For info, following on from the above RFC, I raised this at WP:BOTREQ and it's now been done. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal