Template talk:Airreg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Templates for deletion This template was considered for deletion on 2007 May 5. The result of the discussion was keep.
AVIATION This template is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Template This article has been rated as Template-Class on the quality scale.

I would like to incorporate disasters in (with a parameter, perhaps). Airdisaster.com supports searches via http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/search_keyword.cgi?search=OK-DBF as an example. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I find the amount of content insufficient, in proportion to the site advertising (the big annoying banner advertisement and the google ads). I would much rather keep the links to the official authorities (and most reliable source), such as the FAA. --Aude (talk contribs) 19:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The airdisaster links, such as the one on Korean Air Flight 007, are not too helpful. [1] Thinking more about this, I'm not sure this template is needed at all. It would be better to reference the N-Number and aircraft type, using ref tags with sources linked in the references section, per WP:CITE. And, in referencing these details, I would prefer an official source such as the FAA, or perhaps something like aviation-safety.net which provides more details, with good references (and no ads). --Aude (talk contribs) 19:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe it to be useful. Airdisaster.com has a load of useful information, and often presented in a cleaner manner than the Authority pages. However, if someone can find a way to cleanly link into Authority pages, it should probably be done. By the way, please note which four pages you deleted the template from so that if this is voted down, we can reverse your edits. Thank you. Just because you don't like airdiasaster.com is no reason to delete the whole template.
I would much prefer having the links in the references section. As such, a template may not be needed. Or maybe the template can be set-up to provide the referencing. --Aude (talk contribs) 22:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't just like airdisaster.com, but all sites that overdo on the advertising. Instead of airdisaster.com, we could reference official agency databases, which would satify Wikipedia's reliable sources policy. It's also important to have uniform style of referencing in articles, per WP:CITE. That usually means putting reference links at the end of the article, and using the ref tag. To mix that with embedded HTML is problematic. I have tried modifying the template to use ref tags, but it doesn't work. [2] For now, I suggest referencing the Aircraft registration number without the template. If the FAA or other sources come along and change the way he links work, we can always use a bot or AutoWikiBrowser to update the links. --Aude (talk contribs) 02:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
That seems silly, and I think bots are just as annoying as you apparently find airdisaster.com to be. Anyhow, your vendetta against this site should be decoupled from discussion of the Airreg template. You are mixing issues. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 06:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Airdisaster.com also serves up a pop-up ad, annoyingly circumventing my pop-up blocker. No way is this a suitable site to link to from Wikipedia. --Aude (talk contribs) 02:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
That would add unnecessary clutter to some articles. I think the current form is intuitive. In addition, by having it be a template, if the Authority changes their database query system, if you use references, you have to change a ton of articles. This way, one only needs to change it in one place. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 22:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Suggestions

How about taking each article on a case-by-case basis and determining the best source in each instance, and the best way to reference. If the article already adopted some referencing style, that should be used for referencing the registration number, rather than mixing referencing styles. --Aude (talk contribs) 14:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's another suggestion... let's keep the template but only use it in the {{Infobox Aircraft accident}}. External links are somewhat commonly used in infoboxes. Again, let's also consider the best sources for the tail number on a case-by-case basis, favoring official sites but not ruling out unofficial sites (including airdisaster.com) if the amount and quality of content on those significantly outweighs what's available on the official site. --Aude (talk contribs) 14:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

As an example, I searched United Airlines Flight 173 and found:

  1. airdisaster.com - Investigative report and Accident Synopsis
  2. aviation-safety.net - Accident description, which cites the NTSB report as a source and provides a link to the aircraft accident report from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.
  3. NTSB - Synopsis and Publications, with NTSB Report Number: AAR-79-07 and NTIS Report Number: NTISUB/E/104-007 listed, but probably not available online from the FAA or NTSB

Per WP:RS, source #3 (NTSB) would be preferred but not all information is readily available online from them. The Embry-Riddle source is also good, as an academic source which is making available the official government report. aviation-safety would be my next choice, as the information is presented in clear manner with good references, and no advertisements overwhelming the reader. The "Investigative report" page on airdisaster.com is also acceptable as a source, as it directly transcribes the NTSB report that's available from Embry-Riddle. However, the "Accident synopsis" only provides a few details (date, airline, aircraft, location, registration number, flight number, fatalities, MSN, line number, engine manufacturer and model, and year of delivery). The same information (and more) is available without the banner ad on aviation-safety and in the NTSB report. --Aude (talk contribs) 15:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Though, aviation-safety doesn't allow one to incorporate the N-number in the url. A traditional reference, with ref tag, is needed in this case. In other cases, the FAA or airdisaster.com might be the best sources, in which case the template could be used. --Aude (talk contribs) 15:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template usage:

Below is a list articles using the template, and which source they link to. Overwhemingly, airdisaster.com is used, which I feel is inappropriate per WP:EL, WP:RS, and possibly WP:SPAM (due to the extensive advertising). I don't think this template is needed at all. If anything, only links to official sites are suitable. --Aude (talk contribs) 21:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Numerous links

  1. Airport (film) (transclusion)

[edit] RAB (Brazil)

  1. Varig (transclusion)

[edit] PLH (Hungary)

  1. Malév Hungarian Airlines (transclusion)

[edit] Transport Canada

  1. Gimli Glider (transclusion)
  2. Air Transat Flight 236 (transclusion)

[edit] CAA (UK)

  1. Singapore Airlines (transclusion)
  2. Concorde aircraft histories (transclusion)
  3. G-BBDG (transclusion)
  4. British Airways Flight 9 (transclusion)

[edit] FAA

  1. American Airlines Flight 11 (transclusion)
  2. American Airlines Flight 77 (transclusion)
  3. American Airlines (transclusion)
  4. United Airlines Flight 175 (transclusion)
  5. United Airlines Flight 93 (transclusion)
  6. Aeroméxico (transclusion)
  7. Boeing 777 (transclusion)
  8. De Havilland Comet (transclusion)
  9. ValuJet Flight 592 (transclusion)
  10. SpaceShipOne (transclusion)
  11. Virgin Atlantic GlobalFlyer (transclusion)
  12. White Knight One (transclusion)
  13. N44982 (transclusion)
  14. JetBlue Airways Flight 292 (transclusion)
  15. N900SA (transclusion)

[edit] Airfleets.net

  1. Mathias Rust (transclusion) - no results
  2. Airbus A380 (transclusion)
  3. Iran Air Flight 655 (transclusion)
  4. Kenya Airways Flight 431 (transclusion)
  5. Malév Flight 240 (transclusion) - no results
  6. DHL shootdown incident in Baghdad (transclusion)
  7. PK-AFV (transclusion) - no results

[edit] Airdisaster.com

  1. British Airways (transclusion)
  2. Concorde (transclusion)
  3. Qantas (transclusion)
  4. American Airlines Flight 587 (transclusion)
  5. Air France (transclusion)
  6. Pan American World Airways (transclusion)
  7. Tenerife disaster (transclusion)
  8. Korean Air Flight 007 (transclusion)
  9. Malaysia Airlines (transclusion)
  10. Airbus A340 (transclusion)
  11. American Airlines Flight 191 (transclusion)
  12. All Nippon Airways (transclusion)
  13. Delta Air Lines Flight 191 (transclusion)
  14. Delta Air Lines Flight 1141 (transclusion)
  15. China Southern Airlines (transclusion)
  16. China Airlines Flight 611 (transclusion)
  17. Mandarin Airlines Flight 642 (transclusion)
  18. Air France Flight 4590 (transclusion)
  19. American Airlines Flight 1420 (transclusion)
  20. American Airlines Flight 965 (transclusion)
  21. Japan Airlines Flight 123 (transclusion)
  22. United Airlines Flight 232 (transclusion)
  23. Air Florida Flight 90 (transclusion)
  24. China Eastern Airlines (transclusion)
  25. Saudia Flight 163 (transclusion)
  26. Northwest Airlines Flight 255 (transclusion)
  27. Saudia Flight 763 (transclusion)
  28. Air New Zealand Flight 901 (transclusion)
  29. United Airlines Flight 585 (transclusion)
  30. Northwest Airlines Flight 2501 (transclusion)
  31. United Airlines Flight 615 (transclusion)
  32. British Airways Flight 5390 (transclusion)
  33. China Eastern Flight 5210 (transclusion)
  34. United Airlines Flight 811 (transclusion)
  35. Pan Am Flight 214 (transclusion)
  36. American Airlines Flight 1 (transclusion)
  37. Singapore Airlines Flight 006 (transclusion)
  38. United Airlines Flight 173 (transclusion)
  39. Pacific Air Lines Flight 773 (transclusion)
  40. Malaysia Airlines Flight 653 (transclusion)
  41. United Airlines Flight 409 (transclusion)
  42. Air France Flight 358 (transclusion)
  43. Air France Flight 296 (transclusion)
  44. The Concorde: Airport '79 (transclusion)
  45. Qantas Flight 1 (transclusion)
  46. United Airlines Flight 826 (transclusion)
  47. China Airlines Flight 140 (transclusion)
  48. United Airlines Flight 718 (transclusion)
  49. Southwest Airlines Flight 1248 (transclusion)
  50. United Airlines Flight 533 (transclusion)
  51. Ansett New Zealand Flight 703 (transclusion)
  52. United Airlines Flight 227 (transclusion)
  53. British Airways Flight 149 (transclusion)
  54. BOAC Flight 781 (transclusion)
  55. United Airlines Flight 859 (transclusion)
  56. United Airlines Flight 297 (transclusion)
  57. United Airlines Flight 823 (transclusion)
  58. United Airlines Flight 389 (transclusion)
  59. United Airlines Flight 266 (transclusion)
  60. South African Airways Flight 201 (transclusion)
  61. Delta Air Lines Flight 173 (transclusion)
  62. American Airlines Flight 383 (transclusion)
  63. Pan Am Flight 103 (transclusion)
  64. S7 Airlines Flight 778 (transclusion)
  65. United Airlines Flight 629 (transclusion)

[edit] Non-articles

  1. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft
  2. Template:Airreg (transclusion)
  3. Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Templates

[edit] TfD

Templates for deletion This template was considered for deletion on August 15 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Robdurbar 18:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spam?

Airdisaster.com seems to be pop-up city... this template is effectively sending spammers traffic. I move that the airdisaster.com link be changed (it's not much of a site anyway), perhaps to ASN. Dan100 (Talk) 23:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, we should more it to another site. – Zntrip 18:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
As with my comments above, I still don't think we should link to the site in this manner. I don't really think we need the template at all. Just the ID number and no link suffices. Even with book ISBN numbers, we don't link to particular sites (favoring one over others). People can look it up if they want. --Aude (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

Does anyone have good suggestions on how to make the template link to something more informative and consistent with WP:EL? --Aude (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What alternatives do we have besides airdisaster.com that can be the default option on this template for disasters? I have looked around quite a bit and found aviation-safety.net to be the most informative. But, the site uses the record number to get information from the database, rather than the tail number. Any ideas on possible sites to use or how to make the template work with this site? --Aude (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've made this change: If the third parameter is set to "aviation-safety", then {{airreg|19970109|0|aviation-safety}} gives 19970109-0. The first parameter is the date and the second is the accident number for that date. Is there a consensus to replace links to airdisaster.com with these? Or can they complement airdisaster.com by listing both? –Pomte 21:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I suspect the reason the template creator used airdisaster.com is that it supported using the N-number as a parameter. Making the change to use the other parameter, would require manually changing each instance of where the template is used. It's less than 200 pages, which is doable. The reason for the change is that the airdisaster.com pages really fall under "what not to link to" in WP:EL, since I think many people find pop-up ads that circumvent popup blockers to be objectionable. Wouldn't be as bad if this link was listed in the "External links" section of articles, but these links are often placed in infoboxes and inline in article text. --Aude (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The only way to do a "bait and switch", switching out airdisaster.com and replacing it with the other site is to contact them and ask if they could accommodate us. They might be willing to tweak the site's code to make it that information can be retrieved via tail number. --Aude (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If they don't, we can do it ourselves manually by changing all the uses of {{Airreg}}. The articles should already include the date of the accident, so it's easy to identify the first part of the id (YYYYMMDD). The second part, the single number, can be found by checking the year list. Most often it will be 0. Since this doesn't use the same format as the other links in {{Airreg}}, a new template can be created for this purpose. –Pomte 02:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)