Template talk:US-airport-ga

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Usage

This template is suitable for general aviation (GA) airports that have no scheduled flights.

To use this on an airport page, simply add the following under the "External links" section of the airport:

{{US-airport-ga|XXX}}

Substitute the XXX with the IATA code for the airport (which is typically a 3-letter code). Note that this template assumes that you can prepend "K" to the IATA code to derive the 4-letter ICAO code, so this template is not appropriate for airports that do not follow that rule or do not have an ICAO code.

[edit] Example

[edit] See also

Template:US-airport

  • Use this for airports that have scheduled flights. It includes an "FAA Delays" link that does not work for most general aviation airports.

Template:US-airport-mil

Template:US-airport-minor

  • Use this for airports that do not have an ICAO code which generally includes minor general aviation airports.

[edit] ICAO vs IATA

Perhaps we should do the prepend-K thing for US-airport-ga. It was sort of a bad decision in general for the US-airport one but GA airports with numbers shouldn't have a K prepended to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dbchip (talk • contribs) 17:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC).

  • I agree since all US airports do not follow that 'rule'. If you need the ICAO code, then enter it. As a short term solution, modify the template to only append the K to turn a 3 letter code into a 4 letter code. That way the codes can be adjusted over time. Vegaswikian 23:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I thought the same thing and made the change about a month ago, however the links that use the passed-in value all depend on four-letter codes for airports. As I said in my edit summary
      the live airport activity link and NOAA/NWS link don't work at smaller airports, effectively leaving {{airnav|{{{1}}}}}
    • If/when these other sources update their data to include non-ICAO code airports, then the template should be changed. McNeight 23:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commercial links

Users Dbchip, Bovineone, and Lucent appear to be affiliated with a commercial link found in the External Links of the US-airport-ga template. Dbchip has made very specific entries in the Wiki pages of the CEO of another company in the list (avoiding the use of names). These users have been maliciously cleaning links from competitors of their site from various Wiki articles in clear violation of numerous Wiki policies and the very spirit of Wiki. Please stop reducing yourselves to this level of behavior.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.78.251.178 (talk • contribs) .

You appear to be signing in with different IP addresses in order to avoid the ban that was put in place on User_talk:65.33.51.221. Furthermore, you appear to be violating the three revert rule by insisting on re-introducing obviously commerial links that other editors have been explicitly removing because they do not meet the external links policies and because Wikipedia is not a link directory.
The FBOweb link you add does not appear to offer any benefit beyond what is already offered on the existing AirNav link. FBOweb appears to be consistently less notable than AirNav (which has an established presence on Wikiepedia), based on on Alexa and Google (288,000 hits vs 570,000 hits). Also FBOWEB seems to be a commercial and non-free service.
Sure, I happen to be a fellow wikipedian editor with the people you have mentioned (I link to them on my user page) and know each other because we share a subset of similar interests, but we all have independent thought and are acting with free accord on the behalf of wikipedia. -- Bovineone 15:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
There are three people involved in this particular issue; a user of fboweb.com, someone who works there, and then myself - thus the three IP addresses. The site does indeed provide subscription services; however, all of the links that had been submitted were all free services without any charge, as are all the other links in the template. The edits you've made are clearly biased towards your own personal gain and are innapropriate - you are clearly, empirically affiliated with or related to the other parties, and you should avoid censoring links submitted by other users for that reason alone, especially when there is a conflict of interest so apparent. If you use your rule, the "airport information" reference in the "FlightAware" link should be removed as well, since it is duplicated by AirNav.
FlightAware provides competing services to fboweb.com - the link you've been removing from various aviation-related submissions. However, your own livejournal page has an entry dated July 8th that references a business relationship with "nugget" who is David McNett, the CIO of FlightAware; that same entry says, and I quote, "Business relationships have worked out such that nugget and xxx will also be there.". You've also made substantial edits and contributions to the FlightAware entry, as well as that of Daniel Baker who is the CEO of that company. You, dbchip and Lucent have all made substantial edits/contributions to those pages. The original entries that you removed were placed by a legitimate, unrelated party.
In the spirit of good nature, I'm doing my best to avoid any libelous remarks or personal attacks, but clearly you have a biased opinion related to the entries in question, and it is inappropriate for any of you to be making these changes so readily. Surely everyone's energies are better spent elsewhere rather than playing add/remove games. Please try to maintain some form of neutrality if you're going to particpate at all. -- 67.78.251.178 16:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I already told you I know those wikipedians; I publicly declare so on my user page. And fwiw, my business trip with Nugget was regarding an unrelated business, not FlightAware. I do edit many pages on wikipedia for formatting and style, whenever I find an interesting topic that I've heard of (nearly 2200 distinct pages currently), so it's no surprise that I have edited those. You'll notice that all of my edits to FlightAware or Daniel Baker are strictly formatting and do not otherwise alter the textual content or NPOV of those two articles.
Regardless, this discussion is not about the nature of the existing links to AirNav/FlightAware that have already been contributed by other users, accepted by the community, and are already present in this template--just the addition of even more links. WP:NOT says "wikipedia is not a linkfarm", so it is not necessary to add more links for the pure sake of completeness.
I can understand that you are motivated to promote your content while simultaneously help wikipedia but FBOweb seems to offer substantially comparable functionality as the links already present.
WP:EL also says that it should not include "A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to" and you mentioned above that an employee of FBOweb added the link. WP:EL also forbids "Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services", and FBOweb does appear to be primarily a commercially sponsored website. -- Bovineone 21:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Re-read my message - the original article was not posted by anyone at fboweb.com - they were added by a user of the website with no urging from anyone at fboweb.com; when it was deleted by the users previously mentioned, the original contributor contacted us to report the vandalism, and when we restored the information, this unproductive exchange between "us" and "you three" ensued. And this discussion is entirely related to the to FlightAware links, the removal of the fboweb.com links, and the reasons you did so. You are all quite clearly related, professionally and personally, and therefor biased. Calling on your previous "wiki experience" does not change that situation, and you're now obviously trying to fool someone. As for wether or not fboweb.com offers "substantially comparable functionality" as the other links referenced, that is entirely your opinion, and does not warrant the actual deletion of information without discussion or debate (poor etiquette).
In short, it's dissapointing that you felt it necessary to conduct yourself in this manner. Using the wikipedia as a playground to resolve your corporate competitiveness issues was simply unwarranted, and certainly unprovoked. -- 67.78.251.178 22:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/s/-/Template_talk%7EUS-airport-ga_7ecf.html"