Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Airport Infobox/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Leave your comments below: Thanks, Burgundavia 08:43, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
Commentary
I suggest putting these settings in the table:
- cellpadding=2 cellspacing=0 style="margin: 0 0 0.5em 0.5em"
-- Yath 09:00, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- The following might also be of interest for the infobox:
- distance from nearest town (or the town it's supposed to serve)
- some indication of size - number of flights per day? number of passengers?
- Also, the colours are a bit garish! I suggest a single, light colour for all headings.
- --Auximines 13:02, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Swap Lat and Long so that they are title over data, not beside
- Change Takeoffs to Takeoffs/Landings
Burgundavia 10:09, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Airpoirts have an IATA Airport Code. Please try not to link to IATA when you mean IATA Airport Code. ;-) — Timwi 10:31, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Looks good, mostly nits:
- IATA/ICOA links should go to as close to the actual codes as possible (without redirection)
- Has "metres" and "kilometers"--should be consistent spelling, whether BE or AE is used
- Change format of directional notation so it doesn't look like a date/is more understandable to laypeople (maybe define up in the "Direction" cell?) Niteowlneils 19:26, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
For airport like JFK which are actually inside the borders of a city, the field "closest town" should be replaced with "city". WhisperToMe 20:57, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Use the Template syntax, not a hand-edited table
- Is it the international airport for the country?
- What type? does it have buses that freight passangers from/to the plain and the terminal, do people walk (smaller ones), or does it have that arm-to-airplane system larger airports have
- Perhaps list other services avalible at the airport, transportation to/fro, copenhagen airport for example has a train which goes under it, you walk out from an international flight and take a train, list modes of transportation to/fro. Also things like security deposits.
- First flights, is it a 24/7 airport or does it start/stop at a specific time?
- What airlines frequently fly from this airport ( this should have a last-updated thing ).
- --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 18:53, 2004 Jun 22 (UTC)
- Include number of passengers, flights, etc.
- Indicate size, numer of gates, etc.
- List airlines serving it; airlines using as a hub/repair center
- Xyzzyva 21:49, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
- What security one must go through ( with further info on that in the article itself of course ) --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:56, 2004 Jul 7 (UTC)
I suggest that in the Quick Info section, the 'Opened' slot be changed as 1 July was the date when operations in the airport commenced, and it is not the official opening date, which is 29 December 1981. (Info from the Changi Airport homepage)
Rewriting the page in the template syntax
I'm rewriting this infobox in the template syntax, see Template:tmp and User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason/temp --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 22:20, 2004 Jul 8 (UTC)
Dethumbnail
I hope you don't mind but I made the image on Narita International Airport non-thumbnail. -- EmperorBMA|話す 13:06, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Nits
My comments are based on the test infobox posted at Los Angeles International Airport Copy edits:
- Type of Airport >> Airport type
- Run by >> Operator
- commercial >> Commercial
- Latitude and longitude font should be same as others (10px, right?)
- "Statistics" and "2003" can be on the same line, saving space: Statistics (2003)
General notes:
- Any chance the Latitude: 33° 56.4' north and Longtitude: 118° 24.0' west can sit on top of each other rather than next to each other, so they match the format of Airport type, Operator, Opened, City, etc.?
- My only other suggestion is having more space between the text and the lines of the table. It seems a tiny bit cramped at the moment. Otherwise, great job!
Suggestions
I would suggest putting the airport codes closer to the top of the infobox for quick reference — they are, after all, unique identifiers just like the airport's name. The general public has enough exposure to IATA codes (compared to, let's say, runway information) that they shouldn't wonder too much about what they are (and those who don't know can follow the links anyway, and learn something rather useful!)
Also, many airports in Canada, including all the major ones, are owned and operated by separate entities. I 'm really not sure if it would be a good idea to include an "owned by" line in the infobox, but it's worth thinking about. --Patrick Bernier 11:04, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
geographical etc. data changes
The infobox as it currently stays doesn't address data aging, most notably the magnetic variation and the associated runway re-numbering. Also, rwy lengths can change, rwys added/removed etc. Probably, a traditional (in aviation) "not for navigation" label is appropriate, although in general there seem to be enough disclaimers around the WP anyhow. Perhaps smth like a reference to the source (e.g. DAFIF or FAA database revision).
For the US airports I would also add a relevant airnav link (I don't know if it's OK to give such a wide endorsement to a commercial country-based site, but it is widely recognized by the aviators as a valuable resource. BACbKA 20:31, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Latitude/longitude
I would suggest using a template for the latitude/longitude specification, so that one automagically gets a link to a map service. In the current form latitude and longitude are split between two table boxes - I would suggest having them both in the same box, because there is some trickery involved otherwise. -- Egil 19:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Note that using a template as an argument for another template does not currently work, see bug report. -- Egil 07:09, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty to rewritte Template:tmp so that coordinates go in one box. It really is needed for the future. -- Egil 17:13, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Still in test phase?
It seems that the test is still running, when it was meant to end months ago. It has also has been implemented on a few other airports, such as Charles de Gaulle International Airport so is the test over or not? :P I like the infobox, by the way. - Joolz 16:49, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I just spotted the box at Manchester International Airport. If I may still nitpick... it claims the closest town is Manchester, 16 km away. Err, what about Wilmslow, which is a reasonably sizeable place itself, and is practically at the end of the runway? -- Arwel 16:04, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, this is still in test phase I have still not implemented it wiki-wide. If you wish to merge in all the changes listed here and do that, be my guest. Burgundavia 16:25, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
Sentence case and units
I suggest:
- the term 'Summary' rather than 'Quick Info'
- the term 'Operator' rather than 'Run by'
- sentence case
- unit symbols rather than unit names
- using parentheses () rather than oblique / where units are adjacent
- no link for units
Thus the table would be:
| Victoria International Airport | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Picture of airport[[Image:Airportpicture.jpg|Picture of airport]] | |||
| Summary | |||
| Type of airport | Commercial | ||
| Operator | Victoria Airport Authority | ||
| Opened | Date | ||
| Closest town | Victoria, British Columbia, Canada | ||
| Distance from town | 96 km (35 miles) | ||
| Coordinates | |||
| IATA | YYJ | ICAO | CYYJ |
| Runways | |||
| Direction | Length | Surface | |
| (ft) | (m) | ||
| 09/27 | 7000 | 2000 | Paved |
| 02/20 | 7000 | 2000 | Paved |
| 13/31 | 7000 | 2000 | Paved |
| Statistics | |||
| For 1998 | |||
| Number of passengers | 5,000,000 | ||
| Number of takeoffs | 5,000,000 | ||
Obfuscation
I like the look of the infobox; however, I wonder whether we should be using this kind of thing too much in a collaborative project like the Wikipedia. The markup for the table is both brittle (it's bound to break during editing and cut-and-paste) and obfuscatory (the markup overwhelms and obscures the content) -- it will certainly scare away any but the most experienced Wikipedia users from trying to edit a page. The idea of Wiki markup (either traditional or MediaWiki) is to stay out of the way of the content; when you edit an article like London Heathrow Airport, you start off seeing more markup than content, and I think that is counterproductive.
I acknowledge that a bulleted list of airport data is much uglier than a nicely-done infobox, but the bulleted list is easier to edit, and that should probably win out here. On balance, I'd recommend against the infobox -- it's better to be ugly and accessible than beautiful and inaccessible. David 11:09, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
-
- I am going to make a template out of it, and then include that. The infobox is a good idea, we just need to be selective about what we include. Burgundavia 01:46, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
- I just took at look at Help:Template -- I haven't worked with Wikipedia templates before, but it looks like a much better idea than cutting and pasting all of the table markup. It would probably be best to use named parameters rather than positional ones, to make it more robust. Will we be able to use repeatable elements, like runways, though? David 01:54, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
- The current plan is to have 3 templates. 1 - main template with name etc. 2- a runway template for a single runway. Can be used multiple times 3 - a stats template (I am actually wavering to have this a seperate template for the infobox, inline rather than the side) Does this help? Burgundavia 01:59, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
