Template talk:Infobox airport/Archive 2

message: I noticed that the coordinates are not linked in this infobox, and asked for help over at WikiProject Geographical Coordinates. User:Docu offered to alter this template and use his bot to fix the articles to use the altered Infobox template, if it's OK with the editors here. OK? --Scott Davis Talk 13:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow - there's a place we can ask for help with coordinates :). I had clarkk fix the coordinates up on Template:Infobox Australian Airport a while ago. Same should apply here.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Looks good, especially if somebody else is going to do the grunt work! Wangi 20:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The bug that prevented the use of the  template has now been fixed - I'll update the description on how to enter the info... wangi 14:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a minor problem with the coordinates. If the listed coordinates are like this 56 30N, 114 30W then the page shows 56°30′N″114, 43°W′type:airport″. If you list the coordinates as 56 30 00N, 114 30 00W then the resulting map is not always in the correct place. Trout Lake Airport (Alberta) ends up being several miles west of where it really is and you can't see the airport but Cambridge Bay Water Aerodrome is pretty much in the correct place. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all down to accuracy of the coords you're giving - by only really specifying degrees and minutes it's not accurate enough. Need to find a source with the the coords to seconds accuracy, or work it out yourself. Thanks/wangi 23:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linked coordinates 

message: Before the tempate is rolled out any farther, necessary modifications should be made to avoid having to "double-back". The coordinates should be linked, as they are in almost every other infobox nowadays. The code is available in  - though the AU region bit needs to be dropped. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Template roll out

message: Is it too lat to suggest that the infobox would be more correct to say ASL and link to Above mean sea level rather than MSL? I find MSL looks odd as it a term used in weather. Or link MSL to Above mean sea level. CambridgeBayWeather 21:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading the articles that makes perfect sense, I'll change the template/Wangi 12:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that looks better. At work we take the station pressure and reduce it to the MSL, it's transmitted to the weather centre but not given out to pilots or the public. It's actually used by the forecasters. That's why I thought it looked odd. CambridgeBayWeather 12:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: MSL linking to Above mean sea level makes more sense to me. I've never seen the term AMSL until I took a close look at the infobox this morning. While ASL may seem to make more sense to non-pilots, its dab page is incredibly long, indicating a large possibility of confusion (even if not linking to the dab page). MSL is assumed in an AFD and aeronautical charts to be "above mean sea level". You'd see it as "3,650 MSL" in these official documents, but you would not see it like this with unofficial, online sources like AirNav. Thadius856 21:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: MSL

message: Are we going with a template or inline coding for the infobox?  I read through the archives and could not find an answer.   would be a good example for a template.  The coding there only displays the information that is available.  This has the effect of keeping the infobox smaller when there is less information to display.  Vegaswikian 00:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  template vs. inline 

message: This morning while doing some edits on Québec/Jean Lesage International Airport I found that the name of the company that runs the airport (Aéroport de Québec) redirects to the article. So I tried it as an external link in the infobox. What does anyone else think. I wait to hear others opinons before I do any more in that way. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: In the US at least, there are 3 levels possible between the 2 --- use vs. ownership. A non-military airport can be public ownership, public use, or private ownership, public use, or private/private. The field name "type" is pretty ambiguous for people trying to infer what to put in in the "private ownership/public use" case. Please advise. BACbKA 20:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  type: private vs public 

message: Is there a reason to just strike through the completed migrations?  Given the number completed, it would be nice to be able to remove them.  Vegaswikian 09:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox migration 

message: For some reason I can't think of the correct way to get two towns into the infobox and link correctly. I've got it working but I'm left with  and  at each end. Can someone fix it as my brain's mushy today. Lack of sun I expect. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found exactly the same problem with the new infobox, where only one link is allowed.  The old infobox was far better in this regard, because it used to allow multiple town/city/location links.  Can something please be done to reticify the situation and return the multiple links ability to the new infobox.  It would definitely improve the situation.  Thanks.  Figaro 00:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Figaro, are you refering to Brisbane Airport? I noticed that I actually updated that "serves" in the infobox a few days back - what's wrong with simply saying "Brisbane"? Thanks/wangi 14:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Olds-Didsbury Airport]]

message: I have added infoboxes for all the airports needing infoboxes that are listed. If there are any more that need done, then I am more than willing to do them. Callumm 19:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To save you some time searching, all Canadian airports (stubs or not) have infoboxes. Also I have a small spreadsheet that you can enter the data to create multiple airport infoboxes. It produces an infobox for each airport than you can copy and paste. If anyone has a use for it let me know. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a bunch of Australian & New Zealand ones to the list. Ta/wangi 09:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have begun work on adding infoboxes for the listed airports. Should be finished by tomorrow morning. Thanks for the spreadsheet, CambridgeBayWeather! It saves a lot of time. Callumm 20:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: All but five have now been completed. I couldn't find information for the five which haven't been completed, so if anyone could help there, then it would be much appreciated. Callumm 10:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just added links for 776 airports with no infobox. Rather than list them on the page the are in CambridgeBayWeather/Airports with no infobox. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I notice the new list of airports without an infobox has some airports listed that do have an infobox such as Baghdad International Airport and Bahrain International Airport.  I know they have an infobox because I recently added them myself.  Is there any reason why they are included in the list?  As far as I'm aware I was adding the infoboxes correctly. --Fozi999 10:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's something to do with the way I searched through the dump. I noticed the same thing when I started on the "airport codes" yesterday. I may have got the wrong file (enwiki-latest-pages-articles.xml.bz2) or not searched through it in the correct way. Look at what I got for airports with an infobox, that seems too large. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the problem now. The directory was created on the 28-May but the file was created on the 19-May, 3 days before you put the box in. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airports needing infoboxes - completed 

message: I think we need a fourth type of airport. We have public, private and military but airports like Eureka Airport don't really fit into any of the three types. It's run by the government but it's not a public airport, so I suggest the type government. An comments? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that 'private' would be an appropriate designation for the Eureka airport. If it doesn't allow public access, and is thusly private, who owns the airport is secondary. 'Military' is a part of this infobox, but basically supercedes public or private, because there are airports (primary function military) which allow public access, and those that do not. Skybunny 18:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Airport types

message: I found this earlier while looking for airports with no codes. The headings given were 07/25 but if you look at an aerial shot the angle looks more like 10/19. Hard to find data on this one thought. Any comments? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind. Someone created several Pakistan airports and used 07/25 in them all. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Chilas Airport]]

message: I'm sorry if this has been discussed before. I searched through the archives and did not find anything. Would it be possible to add at least minimal padding (1px or 2px) to the  template for readability? -- Usgnus 19:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cellpadding 

message: Is the distance from town in their entries statute miles or nautical miles? The CFS is in nautical because that's what the pilots in North America use. Makes a minor difference to the article in converting to km. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AirNav Data

message: I see the bolding got removed here. I'm not sure that's an improvment. What does anybody else think. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it better with the bold.  I can't see any reason to remove it in the first place. --Fozi999 11:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Template:Airport codes]]

message: I propose to change the name of the field "closest town" to "serves" in order to prevent confusion in what the field is supposed to contain. It renders as "serves" in the infobox, but what editors in the blank template is "closest town". (I think most people would agree they should be consistent.)  Unfortunately, some editors have interpreted "closest town" to be the actual town the airport is located in, which has led to some odd entries. In most metropolitan areas, the airports are at the edge of the urban area, and not in the principal city, so the "closest town" is often a suburb that is not well-known outside the area. The intent of the field is clearly to present the market or major city that the airport serves (and that is how the field renders).
Also note that the annotation for the infobox says, "Name of the town or city the airport serves. In many cases an airport is associated with a major city but actually is closer to a smaller town, in this case list the major city."
Please see also my comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#Serves_XXX.  --MCB 00:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change "closest town" to "serves" 

message: Do we include the native name in the infobox airport title area (e.g., Munich International AirportFlughafen München Franz Josef Strauß)? If so, do we use small font, or normal font? --physicq210 19:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airport names in infoboxes 

message: The current template sets the width of all images to 200 pixels. This causes smaller images to be distorted, so some people have used workarounds to display an undistorted image.  Using Southwest Florida International Airport as an example, this edit shows the article when the image was first added:
:
The actual width is 172 pixels, but it appears distorted because the template displays it at 200 pixels. Later, this version of the page shows the infobox updated to display the image at its native width by using embedded wiki table markup:
:|align="center" colspan="4"|
I have added a width parameter to the template, so these smaller images can be displayed without distortion (see this edit):
:
This should not affect any existing images, because the width defaults to 200 pixels if the parameter does not exist. If there are any major objections, I'm sure someone will revert my edit, otherwise the project page can be updated to describe the use of the width parameter. Zyxw 11:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. Thanks/wangi 14:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image size in [[:Template: Airport image]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Centering Runway Surface 

message: 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)
thread_title: Template:Runway

message: 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. thadius856talk 21:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Change to {{tl|Runway}}? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Info boxes on USAF bases 

message: 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)
replies: text: Not that I've seen in the last couple of months. Which statistics were you looking to have? Passenger traffic? Number of flights? thadius856talk|airports|neutrality 19:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airport statistics template 

message: I made this edit today based on the fact that in  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)
replies: text: 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  templates in the infoboxes to , or the other way around? (Or something else completely?). —Mets501 (talk) 16:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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  templates in the infoboxes to . Since I wrote the above I've gone home and had a chance to see how it works using Google Earth#Wikipedia 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)

text: 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  I could find with extreme prejudice, reformatting them into the  format. thadius856talk|airports|neutrality 21:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This Google Earth FAQ says "Additionally, Google supports references to the ,  or  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  and omit them from the infobox. – Paschmitts 02:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Google earth

message: 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)
thread_title:  Airport websites in infobox? 

message: 

|-
| style="text-align:center" colspan="4"|

|-
!align="center" colspan="4"|IATA:  - 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"|
|-
!colspan="2" align="left" valign="top"|Operator
|colspan="2" valign="top"|
|-
!colspan="2" align="left" valign="top"|Serves
|colspan="2" valign="top"|
|-
!colspan="2" align="left" valign="top"|Elevation AMSL
|colspan="2" valign="top"| ft ( m)
|-
!colspan="2" align="left" valign="top"|Coordinates
|colspan="2" valign="top"|

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 Wikipedia: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: , Operator:  and Serves: . -- Zyxw 20:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox broken by recently added ''image'' and ''caption'' parameters