Template talk:Infobox aircraft occurrence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation / Aviation accidents (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This article 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
 
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by the Aviation accident project.

Borders[edit]

The border are a bit too much????nishantjr (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Accident or Incident[edit]

If you check Aviation accidents and incidents there are somewhat precise definitions of what is an accident and what is an incident. Everytime that somebody is killed or the aircraft is damaged (or disappears completely) it's an accident. So I guess most incidents that aren't classified as accidents aren't notable. I think the template should say "Accident summary" on the top by default. Perhaps we could add a switch "accident_or_incident=" for those incidents that do have their own articles. --ospalh (talk) 11:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess I have to amend that a bit. Hijackings are aviation incidents and notable. So we probably shouldn't just change the text from incident to accident.--ospalh (talk) 11:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Calling all occurrences 'incidents' is wrong, as would be calling them all 'accidents'. As you say above, there are precise legal definitions for both accident and incident, and 'occurrence' covers both of them. The current version is wrong, because it implies there were no fatalities, for example, whereas most notable occurrences are fatal. I am planning to change the title to 'occurrence', which is the generic term used by government agencies, pending a better term. Crum375 (talk) 03:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I ended up adding an optional parameter 'occurrence_type', which allows the editor to specify 'Accident' or 'Incident', and will default to plain 'Occurrence' if unspecified. This can be improved by forcing enumerated types, possibly using a different parameter name/style, and documentation. Also, given that most notable occurrences are Accidents, it may make sense to default to 'Accident'. Crum375 (talk) 03:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Great work! Thanks. I'm all for changing the default to Accident.
The main alternative to Accident will be, AFAIS, Hijacking and not Incident. I maintain that what's classified as just an Incident is not notable most of the time. The Gimli Glider you added as an 'Incident' is classified an accident by aviation-safety.net. (Search Gimli in the list. The 'cat' 'A2' (last column) means 'accident, plane could be repaired'.) I think that's right: the plane was seriously damaged and a few passengers got hurt during evacuation. An example for just an incident is this ATSB final report. In short: some kind of fuel loss, one engine shut down, landed ASAP, nothing else happend. Other typical incidents are, AFAIK, planes on the runway without authorisation. Doesn't seem notable to me.
What I wonder is; are there enough hijackings using this template to justify not changing the default from Occurance to Accidnt. I think not, but I'm not sure. And it's surely a matter of opinion.--ospalh (talk) 07:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I took a look at some of the pages that use this template. There were more hijackings, and other acts of terrorism (bombings) than I thought. I've now changed my mind. Looks like it'll be better not to change it from Occurrence to Accident.--ospalh (talk) 09:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll change the docs from "Accident or Incident" to "Accident or Hijacking, or leave blank" with a few more words in the parameters table. I'm unsure what the title should be for a bombing or shootdown. Of course "Occurence Summary" fits, but it sounds a bit generic. And "Act of Terrorism Summary" or "Criminal Act Summary" to me seem to be a bit long for the heading in an infobox. I'm not sure that using different occurrence_type for each of those is a good idea. Anybody got an idea?--ospalh (talk) 10:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Callsign[edit]

Any chance of including this in the template? Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Renaming[edit]

Given that the 'occurrence_type' parameter seems to be sticking, and that this infobox covers hijacking, suicide/homicide bombings, as well as plain non-accident incidents, and given that the default caption is 'occurrence', I think it's time to move the title to 'Infobox Aircraft occurrence'. Of course all previous names will be redirected, so there should be no breakage. Comments? Crum375 (talk) 03:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have performed the move. Crum375 (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Image size[edit]

In the documentation, it state that the "image_size" field "defaults to 230 if blank". However, this does not appear to be working, an the inamge is shown at full size. I think perhaps too many cooks have been stirring the broth here. Perhaps it's time to semi-protect the template? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

@BilCat: - it's still not working, so I'm going to remove it for now. Mjroots (talk) 10:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
now fixed, but the default is 260 Frietjes (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Stopovers[edit]

Can the template be amended to support two more stopovers please? Mjroots (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Fix for blank image parameters[edit]

If some of the image parameters are supplied but left blank, instead of being ignored the template currently uses them as though blank.

For example, if image_size and alt are listed but blank, the code results in [[Image:example.jpg|px|alt=]] instead of [[Image:example.jpg|260px]]. This does not much matter for alt but for image_size it unexpectedly results in the image being rendered at full size. The {{Px}} template is intended to help in situations such as this, and it also allows editors flexibility on whether to include "px" after the number.

Also, if image is left blank but Crash image is specified instead, the template expects them to be usable interchangeably but in this case image will still be used, resulting in a blank file name.

Finally, the image_size parameter is also passed on directly to {{Infobox}} even though the Infobox template does not have a parameter of that name.

Therefore, I suggest deleting the following two lines:

 | image       = {{#if:{{{image|}}}{{{Crash image|}}}|[[Image:{{{image|{{{Crash image}}}}}}|{{{image_size|260}}}px|alt={{{alt|}}}]]}}
 |image_size   = {{#if:{{{image_size<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}{{{size|260}}}}}

and replacing them with the following one line:

 | image       = {{#if:{{{image|}}}{{{Crash image|}}}|[[Image:{{#if:{{{image|}}}|{{{image|}}}|{{{Crash image|}}}}}|{{px|{{{image_size|}}}|260px}}|{{#if:{{{alt|}}}|alt={{{alt|}}}}}]]

I've updated the /sandbox but not changed the template itself yet in case anyone has any comments.

Richardguk (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: The template has not been moved, in accordance with the consensus here. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


Template:Infobox Aircraft occurrenceTemplate:Infobox Aircraft incident — It is usual to refer to such events not as "occurrences", but as "incidents". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose — "Incident" in aviation refers to a very specific type of event, where there are implications to safety, possibly some minor injuries, but no fatalities. It is distinct from "Accident", where there is at least one fatality, or major damage and/or injuries. (See the U.S. NTSB's definitions here and the international ICAO's "Occurrence Classes" definition here.) There are also other types of events which are classified separately by ASN and Wikipedia, such as hijacking. The generic name for all these types of events can't be "accident" or "incident", because they are mutually exclusive, and don't include a suicide bombing, for example. "Occurrence" is used on WP to refer to all generic events, with an optional occurrence_type parameter to allow editors to specify a more specific type, such as "accident", "incident", or "homicide bombing", depending on the type of occurrence. Crum375 (talk) 10:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
  • 'It looks like this template is intended to cover the entire spectrum of aviation mishaps, which includes the technical definitions of "accident", "incident", etc.. Because of the need to distinguish the colloquial from the technical meaning, we shouldn't use "incident". Therefore, oppose. TheFeds 22:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. The current name is of no value if figuring out what this covers. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
    • The template's name is supposed to remain as generic as possible, to cover all possible aircraft occurrences, but the occurrence_type parameter lets the editors decide the specific type of occurrence. Crum375 (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Generic yes. Meaningless no. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
        • The reliable sources (ICAO and U.S. NTSB) use "occurrence" as the generic name for an aircraft event. Do you have another suggestion? Crum375 (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Perhaps Template:Infobox Aircraft event would be acceptable? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Why would we want to overrule the two reliable sources we have for this, ICAO and NTSB, which use "occurrence"? Crum375 (talk) 12:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
      • For the reasons Vegaswikian and I gave above. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
        • But I don't see any explanation as to why the reliable sources are wrong. Crum375 (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
          • That would be because nobody is claiming that "the reliable sources are wrong". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
            • So if they are right, why not rely on them? Crum375 (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
              • Crum, just drop the issue for now. Consensus is not required to be unanimous, so it isn't worth going in circles over. - BilCat (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
              • Whether they are right or wrong is immaterial, since they do not address the issue of naming a Wikipedia template. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Template:Infobox Aircraft event is probably too vague to be useful, and even more meaningless than "occurence" can be without any context. - BilCat (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I also think "aircraft event" could refer to "happy" occasions, such as a "roll out" or inaugural flight of a new type, a record-breaking flight, or even a "Fly-in". This is why it's nice to have the reliable sources picking the word for us. Crum375 (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per Crum375. If reliable sources use "occurrence", then it is hardly "meaningless". - BilCat (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per Crum375's comments. - The Bushranger (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Maps[edit]

Would it be useful to be able to include a map showing the location of the accident/incident? What I have in mind is something similar to the various maps showing locations of towns and villages. Mjroots (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This template should really allow for a map to be added (like this for example). It should also allow for the time to be added (i.e. the time that the incident happend). ~Asarlaí 21:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Split type= to scenario= and cause= ?[edit]

The so named "accident type" parameter attempts to answer simultaneously two different questions:

  • Which was a scenario of the event destroyed an aircraft and made some fatalities inevitable?
  • What factors caused such scenario to be realized?

Such choices for type= as “Mid-air collision”, “Controlled flight into terrain” and “Structural failure” are scenarios, but each of these may have various causes. On the other hand, “Pilot error”, “Metal fatigue” and “Improper maintenance” are possible causes, but not scenarios.

Comprehensive descriptions of incident scenario and cause should be like that: | scenario= Mid-air collision | cause= ATC error | scenario= Explosive decompression | cause= Metal fatigue

Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. I've always found "accident type" to be confused/confusing. 82.1.57.194 (talk) 11:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


So, where is a discussion, where is the progress? Demolished the house to be built, protected the infobox and went to sleep? We are brass hats, we can build nothing, we just revert and protect… how is it familiar to me ☹ Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively - why not put more into the parameter. Write "collision due to fog", "crash due to engine loss". Now, that some instances might be hard to summarise in a few words but that would be a problem whether one line or two are used. Expanding what is put into the parameter needs only consensus and a rewriting of the template instructions and no editing of the template code. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
An obvious shortcoming of this proposal is worse machine-readability, which decreases possibilities of:
  • automatic categorization,
  • metadata processing, and
  • centralized changes to an appearance of the same value used in hundreds of instances.
In view of Wikidata starting up, namely improving a machine-readability should become the infobox way. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • At first, I'd've agreed with GraemeL, except that the more articles I browsed, the more the confusion between type and cause and/or the omission of one or the other in the descriptions persuaded me that a little more structure was needed – i.e. separate type and cause parameters (and perhaps selection from a limited choice of types). Incnis M has now indicated how this might be built on to produce more integrated, consistent data for (future) reference uses. CsDix (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • ...I've now moved the "IP version" (from 2011) into this template's sandbox and, on first sight, it seems a promising way to proceed. Would anyone object if I made an edit request to reinstate it – or something close to it – in order to see how it might handle a range of articles? It seems to be transparent as regards parameters (i.e. doesn't look as if it would "break" the current system), but I'd check this was so before making such a request. CsDix (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

More info related to hijackings[edit]

I think it's a good idea to add some hijacking-specific items to the template to provide some information that's not normally applicable to other types of aviation occurrence. This includes:

  • Number of hijackers. The infoboxes in some current hijacking articles include the hijackers in the passenger count, but others don't, and there seems to be little consistency. I think that a hijacker count is important enough to warrant its own line in the infobox.
  • A separate injury, fatality, and survivor count for the hijacker(s). Again, some articles lump this in with the passenger count, which I find confusing.
  • Number of hijackers captured, if any.
  • Organization(s) to which the hijackers belong, if any can be identified.
  • If the aircraft was diverted by the hijacker(s), I think the infobox should include the location(s) to which it was taken. Note that this is different than fields already included in the infobox- "Location" would be the place the hijacking occurred and "Destination" would be the flight's intended destination.
  • A brief one-sentence description of the conclusion of the hijacking incident- e.g. "Hijacker arrested by police", "Airliner stormed by commandos, all hijackers killed, several hostages and one soldier injured".

Thoughts? Carguychris (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Took a stab at making the changes in the sandbox and test cases have been posted.Carguychris (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Tail number[edit]

Is it time to change the colloquial Tail Number from the infobox and change it to the more normal Registration, the term links to Aircraft registration already. MilborneOne (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

No comments after two-weeks I will make the change soon. MilborneOne (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Registration seems better to me — particularly as for many (or most) nationalities, aircraft registration does not involve numbers at all.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, "tail number" is used to refer to even no-number-at-all registrations, at least on this side of the pond. Not sure globally of course! But "Registration" is probably the best, neutral expression. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Perpetrator field[edit]

Should this have a perpetrator field. It seems like that might be useful for articles like Iran Air Flight 655 and United Airlines Flight 175. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

No I dont think it is really needed in the infobox. MilborneOne (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Ironically, I feel that perpetrator is exactly the type of language that would be disputed in the cases we were discussing, such as the one over at USS Liberty, as the idea of writing nations as belligerents or fighting each other has been rejected since both governments weren't actively at war or fought against each other and have attributed it to mistaken identity. --Jethro B 19:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
We could use some other word instead of "perpetrator". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
We could also have a "perpetrator_header" parameter like the "combatants_header" on {{Infobox military conflict}}. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

We have Category:Airliner shootdown incidents, Category:Airliner bombings, and Category:Airliner accidents and incidents involving deliberate crashes‎, containing dozens of articles that use this template. Where the party responsible for the occurrence is know, it should be in the info box, with a reliable source ref if necessary. If the matter is controversial, wording can be worked out on the talk page of the article in question, or the line can be left out if consensus is lacking. But there are plenty of clear cut cases.--agr (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Cause[edit]

It should say what the cause was. The TWA Flight 800 crash was caused by a short circuit, which produced a spark that detonated air and paraffin mixture, causing the fuselage to fracture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.209.248 (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

In the TWA Flight 800 it says the accident type was an "In-flight Explosion". Further detail is in the article and not really needed in the infobox. MilborneOne (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 April 2013[edit]

Request to rename 'Type' to 'Summary' (deprecate 'type' param but leave it in for backward compatibility).

See discussion here. The most important points are: it is not our place to label or somehow classify aircraft occurrences; and that 'type' currently lacks a simple taxonomy, leading to arguments of that sort. It should also be made clear in the doc that the summary ought to be factual; a very brief recount of events. It should not be an attempt to somehow apportion blame and it shouldn't delve into whatever factors led to the occurrence, i.e. phrasing like 'pilot error' that is largely uninformative should be avoided. This is ok: 'Aircraft impacted mountain side'; this is not ok: 'Aircraft impacted mountain side after improper control inputs'; this is not ok either: 'CFIT'.

Lfdder (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Really need more input from users rather than a discussion on one article, I have invited other users to comment here at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The requested change seems like a positive suggestion to me. - Ahunt (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - I haven't looked super closely at this question, but glancing over it the proposal makes sense. I've looked at a few of the pages that use this template, and it seems to me that "Summary" is simply a better word to use. NickCT (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

No opposition to this request, so Yes check.svg Done. Perhaps someone could update the documentation? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Support Although late to the party, I support this proposal because the "Type" field is not always supported by RS making its inclusion problematic in terms of OR. "Summary" is a much better choice as a field. I also support the RFC rationale presented by Lfdder. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 12:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 June 2013[edit]

Replace lines 14–17

| label2      = Date
| data2       = {{{Date|{{{date|}}} }}}
| label3      = Summary
| data3       = {{{summary|{{{Type|{{{type|}}}}}}}}}

with

| data2       = {{{summary|{{{Type|{{{type|}}}}}}}}}
| label3      = Date
| data3       = {{{Date|{{{date|}}} }}}

so as to avoid repetition ("Occurrence summary :: summary"). Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence/sandbox 2 to see difference. Lfdder (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose – While I can see the purpose of your proposed edit, I don't think we should move the summary to the top of the infobox. It almost looks like a headline for a news article; I see no reason to emphasize the summary of the accident. I'd prefer having the summary the way it currently is, i.e. below the date. HeyMid (contribs) 21:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request 07/2013: Incident ID[edit]

Please add an optional field for incident IDs, so that the corresponding reports can be looked up accordingly, e.g. DCA13MA120 for the Asiana 214 flight [1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parallelized (talkcontribs) 20:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure it is needed if an investigation report is released it will be referenced or used as an external link so the organisations number has no value, I also suspect it only applies to the United States. MilborneOne (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. — Lfdder (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 July 2013[edit]

Rm odd styling from caption padding-top:1.0em;

Lfdder (talk) 12:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

DoneMr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Adding Aviation Safety Network as a parameter?[edit]

Can we add a parameter to the infobox to allow the linking of this site? This site has the information for all aviation accidents, incidents, and hijackings as well as providing maps (which wikipedia isn't directly allowed to use but can do so via a third party). The links are quite simple, allow a parameter such as |ASN = 20140308-0 which would appear as a link at the bottom of the infobox, preferable called ASN. This site is trustworthy (even has its own article) and used in over 6,800 articles on wikipedia..Its quite a useful link to have on the pages of every aviation crash related articles--Stemoc (talk) 10:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Dont agree as ASN is not the only site with this sort of information and we should not promote it in the infobox, in the actual article we already have a template for use Template:ASN accident (note also Template:ASN which is used for airport accident info). MilborneOne (talk) 10:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Definitely not the only site, but the most reliable, and using it as a template already means that it should somehow be incorporated into the infobox...its like an ID number for airplane disasters just like we have id numbers for players in certain sports etc..and since its a database, it probably has more information than wikipedia and probably more detailed.... wouldn't it be a good idea to give readers options? since its a database, its updated regularly, can't say the same for related pages on wikipedia..--Stemoc (talk) 10:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Still dont agree it is on the border of not being a reliable source so using the Template:ASN accident in the article is OK but not in the infobox. To gain balance then it could then be claimed we link to all the other accident websites which is clearly not needed. MilborneOne (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Add IATA/ICAO airport codes[edit]

The origin/stopover/destination locations seem bare without the IATA/ICAO airport codes. Shouldn't we have parameters for these, which, if present, would append "(XXX/YYYY)" to the location? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The locations are linked so the codes can be found in the related article, they are not really relevant to the accident or the general reader. MilborneOne (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Missing parameter?[edit]

From my post over at Talk:Tenerife_airport_disaster#parameter_in_infobox_not_used.3F: Currently in the infobox, there's a parameter: |plane2_remarks = The tour guide who did not reboard the plane is not counted as a survivor, nor as a passenger. - the infobox does not currently implement this parameter and thus this should be remedied. I am unsure when there was such a parameter (cursory checks of a few diffs didn't find it), and thus I ask whether this is abnormal. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 04:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure we need a free text field in the infobox and it seems a strange statement to make in an infobox, or indeed in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Please increase number of supported numbered stopovers from 4 to 6[edit]

Please add parameters stopover4 (labeled "5th stopover") and stopover 5 (labeled "6th stopover"), analogous to the existing ones, needed for reasonable numbering of all the stopovers in article Varig Flight 254 and maybe others. WinTakeAll💬 05:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Please update the documentation and the examples. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 18:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 June 2014[edit]

The infobox doesn't display the image/caption of the second aircraft. See also this edit. When I use plane3_image and plane3_caption, both are displayed. Richard 08:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This needs to be fixed, but the above template is only used when there is code ready to apply; so I've disabled it for now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Two images?[edit]

If anyone knows how to get two images to display correctly (i.e. both same size and in correct place) please would they edit the 2014 Olsberg mid-air collision article to get them to do so. Thanks in advance. Mjroots (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

See previous heading. It's an error in the infobox that should be corrected. Since the template is protected, I can't do it myself. Richard 08:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
@Richardw:, what is the error. I can edit the template, but need to know what to do. Mjroots (talk) 08:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Probably somewhere in this edit, the template lost its ability to display the second image. It used to work fine. Richard 13:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Pinging @Technical 13: - can you fix this please? Mjroots (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • That's really odd. Should (and seems to) be working fine now. If the image doesn't display, try a null edit (click edit, scroll to edit box, click save). Thanks for bringing it up! — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 18:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks guys! Richard 07:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Map support[edit]

I've hacked together support for maps in this template. Please see Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence/sandbox and Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence/testcases. Mackensen (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Missing people[edit]

As for example Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, I think it's useful to expand the infobox with missing people (besides of: Injuries (non-fatal), Fatalities and Survivors). Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I made a sandboxed version of the template with new "missing" parameters. See test cases. Ruslik_Zero 18:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done APerson (talk!) 21:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Injuries vs survivors[edit]

What is the difference between injuries and survivors? I can't discern any difference in their descriptions. ―Mandruss  07:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

At the risk of stating the obvious: not every survivor is necessarily injured. The group with non-fatal injuries is a subset of the survivors. The number of people with non-fatal injuries is alway less than or equal to the number of survivors. Richard 08:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
You're absolutely right. Analyzing my thought log to determine the cause of the accident. ―Mandruss  11:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

De-link 'Registration'?[edit]

The Registration label in the infobox is the only one that is wiki-linked (linking – not inappropriately – to Aircraft registration), so it looks oddly out, among all the other labels. Indeed, it's rather uncommon for infobox labels to be wiki-linked in general (for the same reason as WP:BOLDTITLE, I would suggest). It would be better to link Aircraft registration normally, from the article body, considering that the word 'registration' is almost always mentioned there (e.g. "the aircraft involved, registration N12345, ...") I'm happy to look through all the articles that transclude 'Infobox aircraft occurrence' and add links to Aircraft registration where missing. --Deeday-UK (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree, I suspect it was done to hide the fact the field is called tail-number! which is not always understood to be the same thing by different people. There has been a suggestion that we actually add an additional field for "serial number" for military aircraft. That said I dont see why registration needs to be linked. MilborneOne (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Dates[edit]

A concensus was reached that dates should be in dmy format except for US militayr aviation/. Please use 24 February 1993 (1993-02-24) for dates in occurrence infoboxes!!--Petebutt (talk) 09:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Adding SKYbrary as a parameter?[edit]

I propose adding a link to the SKYbrary site as a parameter in the infobox. There are other sites with this information (in fact the last year it was proposed to add the ASN entry but no consesus was reached), but SKYbrary was created by EUROCONTROL, ICAO, and the Flight Safety Foundation, so can be considered representative information. Currently some articles use the Template:SKYbrary A&SI, so the approach could be the same (tile page, and incident type). Thanks for any feedback! —surueña 06:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Not sure it needs to be in the infobox, if SKYbrary has content that adds to the article as you said a template is available to add to the bottom of the article. MilborneOne (talk) 12:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)