Template talk:Infobox Airline

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Aviation
WikiProject
General information
Main project page talk
Style guide
Announcements and open tasks talk
 → Maintenance talk
 → New articles (archive) talk
Assessment department (Log) talk
 → Featured articles (15) talk
 → Good articles (54) talk
Collaboration department talk
Peer review department talk
Contest talk
Showcase
 → Featured picture gallery talk
Portals
 This box: view • talk • edit  · changes

Contents

[edit] Reverted changes

  • I reverted your changes. Please visit the WikiProject page and read our discussion before removing items from the infobox. Dbinder 14:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Missing logo

The infobox needs updating when a logo is not available as in Aero Caribbean. Vegaswikian 21:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I removed those changes for now. It caused the infobox to ignore the logo size specification, resulting in some ridiculously large images on some pages (especially KLM and United). I'm not really sure how to fix the problem, so reverted until someone can take a look at it. Dbinder 16:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Banner color

I changes the banner color to a more eye pleasing color, If that color doesn't go over well then may I suggest another blue shade such as #ABCDEF (Pale Cornflower) or #5F9EA0 (cadet blue) - Trevor macinnis 19:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

  • That looks better. Dbinder 19:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] help with errors

There is a display error at Ansett. Can someone please fix? Perhaps some instructions on how to use this template would be a good idea as it is quite complex.--A Y Arktos 21:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] qif...

CBDunkerson has just added {{qif}} (doc/talk) to this template... Is this really something we want to do - WP:AUM? Thanks/wangi 00:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Brion has stated that, contrary to WP:AUM, there are not significant server load concerns from 'meta templates' like qif. The 'hiddenStructure' method on the other hand definitely causes accessibility problems... displaying extraneous text in non CSS browsers (Lynx) and speaking it in some screen-reader programs. --CBD ☎ ✉ 00:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I second that. The CSS hack has accessibility problems. See also Wikipedia talk:hiddenStructure. The CSS hack throws stuff onto clients and asks the browser to hide it. CSS was not designed to be used like this. There are also browsers that do not support CSS and thus the hiding does not work. qif produces decent html and will be replaced by functions in MediaWiki in the future (See Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates#What I need from you). --Adrian Buehlmann 01:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I see it's been reverted - somebody thinks you were proving a point. Anyway, I've no problem with qif, and I think it is a better approach than the CSS frig. However, I do question the need for optional fields in this template at all. Thanks/wangi 10:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I would say it is not that bad to use qif until we have conditional support in MediaWiki. At least qif produces decent html and it no longer "violates" WP:AUM as that has been vaporized recently (WP:AUM has been used as a banner to extinct uses of qif in a arcane crusade for premature optimization). On the other hand, one might be tempted to use hiddenStructure until we have conditionals in MediaWiki. But this produces problematic html code. So the question is what ugliness should be used. What I can say is I would not go and try to avoid at all cost conditional fields. It is a safe bet that we will have support for that barely missing feature in future versions of MediaWiki. --Adrian Buehlmann 10:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Key Cities

Hello, Over on the JetBlue Talk Page we've been struggling with how the concept of Hubs works with JetBlue, and we think that we should just use JetBlue's term of Focus cities, and not Hubs in the infobox. Would it be possible to modify the Template to have a key_cities attribute, that works just like the focus_cities attribute? Thank you. —Cliffb 06:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that while the definition of a focus city is somewhat vague, it is still an official term used in the industry. Key city isn't. Can the JetBlue article just use focus cities? DB (talk) 06:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
A couple airlines have their own names for what is essentially a focus city (JetBlue uses "Key City", Ryanair calls all their focus cities "bases" - although base actually has a different meaning). Creating a special section for each of these cases would cause the infobox to become unwieldy. DB (talk) 06:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the issue comes from that the Focus city text also lists them as "secondary hubs". Perhaps those need to be unbundled? I know this is a little picky, but if editors had the ability to be specific between Hubs, secondary hubs, and focus cities that would probably help clarify and resolve some of the disagreements.. —Cliffb 06:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
That should work. When making the change, keep the focus city attribute and just add the secondary hubs one, though. Changing the name of the attribute would create broken references in every airline article. DB (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Well what about keeping it as is and adding focus_cities2 and secondary_hubs -- this way it doesn't make any unintended modifications to existing articles? —Cliffb 17:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
That shouldn't be necessary. Moving secondary hubs to a separate field would only cause airlines' secondary hubs to be listed as focus cities for the time being. Since secondary hub and focus city are somewhat vague terms anyway, I don't think anyone will flip out over the change. DB (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
True. Sounds good.. Um, would you like to make the change to the template? —Cliffb 18:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Done DB (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bases

Hey everybody. It has been brought up that evidently Spirit Airlines doesn't have hubs anymore (even though 90% of their flights go through Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport. Is there any way we could add Bases to the infobox for any airlines that are reluctant to call their focus of operations a Hub and prefer Base? Sox23 00:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone obect to Bases being added to the template? Sox23 04:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parent company

It has been observed that User:Russavia has been actively replacing entries for the "parent company" field across multiple articles [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6], on the basis of a singular definition of majority shareholding as the sole criterion for eligible entries under that category. This he has proceeded done so despite his failing to garner concensus. If he continous to demonstrate disruptive editing by continously mass-editing articles at this stage, I would strongly propose amending the "Parent company" field and changing it to "major shareholder(s)" instead.--Huaiwei 15:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

He has a lot of articles to change! the parent field has been used on a lot of airline articles for the legal name if the airline has no parent. I dont think it was every intended to list major shareholders in a public company, I am sure that it was intended to list the owner of a private companies. I am not sure that major shareholders gives any value in most cases as the nature shareholding in public quoted companies can change from day-to-day!. Can we please have a field that has legal name to replace those deleted by User:Russavia. MilborneOne 05:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
This is following on from the proposal I put at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines#New_infobox_needed.3F. The parent company field should be as I have changed with many airline articles, where the actual parent company is placed. What is needed is a separate Major shareholders field, where all shareholders who own more than 10% can be placed (10% is the standard for this definition).

We also need other fields added as per my proposal which are:

  • Main base
  • Secondary base
  • AOC
  • Membership org

The legal name, i.e. Qantas Airways Limited, needs to be in the lead paragraph, as per WP:MOS.

Airlines are a business, and we need to make the articles and information in them a little more businesslike. At the moment we have the legal name in the parent company box, and this isn't correct, hence why I propose what I did on the project talk page (refer to my full info at link above) --Russavia 03:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I would be wondering just how a "businesslike" article is supposed to look like without veering too much towards blatant advertising. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and all articles (except supporting articles, such as lists, obviously) must be presented as encyclopedia articles with no exception. Perhaps you should be concentrating your attention on the primary issue over "parent company/shareholdings" now before moving on to other suggestions, considering the one mass-editing articles across wikipedia is no one but yourself. It has also been noted that you have taken to "updating infoboxes" across wikipedia and asking for people to use "new infoboxes" when you have not even gathered concensus to change the infobox itself. Kindly familiarise yourself with wikipedia's procedures before engaging in further disruptive editing exercises.--Huaiwei 03:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Businesslike is perhaps not the right word. Professional and encyclopaedic are the right words, instead of the spotterlike that many articles do look like at the present time. And my placement of some infobox updates was because those articles were using OLD versions of the infobox as it stands NOW, not for any proposal that I had to change the infobox. Perhaps that should have been looked at before Huaiwei, instead of saying what you did. Also, if you would care to look at Template:Infobox_Airline at the example given at the bottom, you will notice that the parent company field is used for precisely the type of information which I have included in Singapore Airlines and other articles, so I don't need to get any consensus on that at all. So please, familiarise youself with what the infobox is actually used for before telling me to get consensus on such a change. --Russavia 05:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Refer to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Airline_Infobox#Specification_of_Infobox. --Russavia 05:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Encylopedias are inherently professional, so I fail to see where you are coming from. Also, kindly define spotterlike. If articles are not up to standard according to wikipedia standards, just state so matter-of-factly. As for inboxes, just which old infobox are you talking about? I noticed I wasent the only one who was confused[7] by your misleading terminologies and abuse of the newinfobox tag, so just who are you to tell me to "look for it"? If a field is being used "incorrectly" across wikipedia, that is an issue to discuss as I have stated above, and is not a new infobox issue, nor is it an excuse to mass rename articles. So please, familiarise youself with how wikipedia actually goes about obtaining concensus before telling me to get familiarised with the infobox.--Huaiwei 05:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Like I said here Huaiwei, I find it somewhat amusing that according to you, I have to obtain consensus to change a single piece of information in an article which is fully within the guidelines of what the infobox is used for (and referenced mind you), yet you feel you do not need to get consensus to include codeshare destinations and flight numbers which go against guidelines of the project, and in the case of flight numbers, there is no consensus for, with the only one who supports having it being you; with any edits of it being wholesale reverted on sight by yourself; reverting back this information, in addition to the spelling/grammer mistakes in the article, and other pieces of information which were also updated, but are now out of date again in the article. So, I am totally open to gaining the consensus of changing the infobox in the SIA article, so long as you are also open to gainin consensus on the inclusion of codeshare destinations and flight numbers in the same articles. Is this something that you would be happy to do? --Russavia 06:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
As to the old infobox, please refer to this [diff], there are fields present in the article infobox as it stood which were not in the updated. Assume good faith with those, because that was simply letting people know their article infobox was out of date, although I found out later I should have done this on the talk page, but to expect me to change the infobox of thousands of airline infoboxes is a little out of the question, when I have been going thru thousands of articles as of late, easier to let editors know, they can change the infobox template and also update info in the infobox at the same time. Unfortunately, good faith was not assumed with that. --Russavia 11:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Any thoughts on adding a field for company type? Airlines could be identified as private (what few there are) or public and any stock symbol information mentioned using the nasdaq, nyse, tsx, etc. templates. Many airlines are publicly traded both under corporation devoted to the airline and the parent company.--Rtphokie (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hubs/focus cities should include city names

There are many airports whose names do not include the cities they serve, and some people who added the city names have had their edits reverted. If someone is to print out the airline article, the infobox may only say Kennedy, Logan, La Guardia, or the numerous Mexican generals with no mention of which cities they are in. After all, shouldn't the names of the CITIES be in the list of focus CITIES? Even in airlines' own press release templates, they are likely to include their hub cities' names instead of hub airports' name. (I've seen Continental's.) Therefore I suggest a new standard for listing hubs, secondary hubs and focus cities in an airline infobox, using MMTJ as an example:

HkCaGu (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits causing white space above template

User:Jamcib made three edits on 9 April 2008, one of which caused blank lines to appear above the infobox on pages where some of the optional fields are not included. Those were reverted by User:Davidgothberg, after which Jamcib again made the same three edits on 10 April 2008:

  1. first edit by Jamcib: inserted <includeonly> and </includeonly>
  2. second edit by Jamcib: inserted line breaks after <includeonly> and before </includeonly>
  3. third edit by Jamcib: removed <includeonly> and </includeonly> but added line breaks between }} and {{

Here's an section of the template before the third edit:

}}{{
#if: {{{ceased<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} |
<tr><th colspan="2">Ceased operations</th><td>{{{ceased}}}</td></tr>

And the same section after the third edit:

}}
{{#if: {{{ceased<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} |
<tr><th colspan="2">Ceased operations</th><td>{{{ceased}}}</td></tr>

This causes one blank line above the infobox for every optional parameter which is left blank or omitted (4 blank parameters = 4 blank lines above infobox in article). I reverted these changes and the infobox should now display correctly. -- Zyxw (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)