Template talk:Infobox airline

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation / Airlines (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 airline project.


Please somebody add "num_employees" in the infobox to provide total headcount of the company. If you have any problem pls visit Template:Infobox company for clear idea.Thanks--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 04:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Caption for image[edit]

We need a caption field for the image. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

seems uncontroversial, so done. Frietjes (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Six minutes is a bit quick I think, I am not sure why you would need a caption for a logo which is why this infobox has never had one. So I would object to the change. MilborneOne (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I disabled it for |logo=, does this solve the problem? Frietjes (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
for the purposes of discussion, I believe this was requested for Colonial Air Transport. Frietjes (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
It should not have an image in the infobox it is not what we use the infobox for, I will raise it at project and see what other views are as this is not a highly visible talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
IMHO, there's no need for such addition. If an image is wanted/preferred, it should stand for itself without any further explanations (see Air Mali (1960–1989) for an example).--Jetstreamer Talk 21:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Update, since the parameters have changed in the instructions to "image", instead of "logo" (which can still be used), I've added back the 'caption' parameter. It is optional, and will not show if not used. Funandtrvl (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Needs traded_as field (and possibly others)[edit]

In common with the comments above, I think this infobox needs the potential to host all the information that might be found in Infobox country. For example, I came to the Aer Lingus page looking for their stock market codes (the field traded_as in the company infobox) but it's not present. There's no parent company here, Aer Lingus actually is the listed entity. I think all such fields should be optionally available here. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I came here to request the same thing. Sometimes ownership of the airline is a company without an article (possibly because the company is not notable enough to have an article separate from the airline) and sometimes the company which owns the airline also owns other (but smaller) airlines. For this reason, I think the "traded as" code should contain the name of the corporation in small font on the first line with the stock code on the second. AHeneen (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I am not convinced that stock codes have any encyclopedic merit in airline articles, I had to look up what they were so hardly of note to the average reader. MilborneOne (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
They are noteworthy for articles about businesses/corporations/etc which are publicly traded. The reason I believe they belong in this template is because the airline infobox is used on airline articles where there is no separate article about the company, in which case Template:Infobox company would be used. Exceptions I've found are where multiple airlines are owned by one group or one airline is owned by a holding company: LATAM Airlines Group, AMR Corporation, International Airlines Group, Air France–KLM, United Continental Holdings, Frontier Airlines Holdings. However, this information is not present in the infobox on airlines like Delta Air Lines, Qantas, Southwest Airlines, or Malaysian Airlines, where the company owning the airline (Delta Air Lines, Inc.; Qantas Airways Limited; Southwest Airlines Co.; Malaysian Airline System) has no separate article (the stock code may be in the first sentence, however). AHeneen (talk) 23:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 09:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding User:AHeneens comment, I don't think the stock code should be in lead. WP:TICKER gives arguments for removing it and suggests putting it in an infobox. I would support adding it to this infobox. --Svgalbertian (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree As long as an airline is a company, which seems to be the case, the infobox should include the traded_as parameter.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)-
Agree makes sense to have the associated financial data similar to the company infobox.Devopam (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I've reset the edit request. When the airline article is for the publicly-traded company, it should have the parameter |traded_as= like Template:Infobox company has. This is a noteworthy aspect of any business that is publicly traded. See WP:TICKER and this RfC about ticker symbols in leads for reasons why the ticker symbol should be in the infobox. Airlines are no less a company than any other. Of course, as with businesses, this would only be used in cases where the airline and publicly-traded company are the same (ie. don't merit separate articles) and won't be used in cases where there are separate companies, eg. Delta Air Lines is not substantially different than the publicly-traded company Delta Air Lines, Incorporated (wouldn't consider a separate article) and thus would include NYSEDAL. It would not be added to subsidiaries such as British Airways (part of publicly-traded International Airlines Group) or brand names like Delta Connection, just like business subsidiaries like GE Capital don't have a stock ticker only their publicly-traded parent (in this case, General Electric) does.The last two comments came after I mentioned this discussion at WikiProject Companies (in a way to encourage discussion here, not to canvas). Even without that support, there have been three supporters of this parameters with clear and reasonable arguments for its inclusion (plus another in an archived discussion) vs. one editor giving a fallacious argument. AHeneen (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --Ahecht (TALK
) 15:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Ability to hide top portion (IATA, ICAO, and Callsign)[edit]

Any chance someone can add the ability (or even the default behavior) to hide the top bar of the template unless these variables are filled in the template? For some articles, specifically for defunct and/or foreign and/or old airlines, this information is inapplicable (ex. Deccan Airways Limited). Having the extra top bar is a waste of space at best and misleading/confusing at worst. My suggestion would be to be to hide it unless all three have a variable. That way, even if not all three are given, the editor has to put "none" or "N/A" in the variable. The alternative would be to default to show but have "None/NA" as the default shown unless something is put into the respective field. Cat-fivetc ---- 09:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I say suppress if all are empty but if any of the fields has data then show the header and the data. (It's not difficult template code. You add IF statements such that unless at least one has content, the whole thing is hidden.) Don't know why it has to run in columns, the more logical approach would be rows below the header. And if we are tweaking things, a couple of horizontal lines to break up the long run of data into sections wouldn't hurt. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
done? if they are all empty, the block is now suppressed. Frietjes (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
While we are talking about that section of the infobox, I reckon there's a double bold applied to the codes and callsign (there is both a wikitable ! and triple apostrophes in the code). Anyone else think it looks a bit heavy?GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
in many browsers, double bold appears the same as single bold. see this related thread. in this case, we can simply remove the extra bold. Frietjes (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Sorry for not replying sooner, thank you for implementing this. Cat-fivetc ---- 03:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


I'm been trying to update the Aeroflot article and it seems that the subsidiaries won't display. Is it formatted incorrectly? --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

someone fixed it for you. Frietjes (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Add field for Ticket Stock number[edit]

I would like to add the airline's ticket stock number (a three digit number) to the template - and also use that data, as it becomes available, for an automatically created list of ticket stock numbers. This information is sometimes hard to come by. However, I don't know how to do this on Wikipedia. :-) Ds77 (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this template needs the "traded_as" field for the stock code/number, such as found in Template:Infobox company. This was previously discussed above in the section Needs traded_as field (and possibly others) with compelling arguments but no clear consensus for inclusion, but the above comment is the second additional person supporting this field. As such, I have added the edit request. AHeneen (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Ds77 is talking about the three-digit "prefix" or "accounting" codes. These are allotted by IATA and appear on printed tickets. I'm disabling {{Edit template-protected}}, which should only be used when there's consensus for a change. Alakzi (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
As we are not a travel guide I cant see any encyclopedic value in the accounting code being displayed, which as far as I know are never mentioned in the article body because they are not notable. Perhaps something for wikidata. MilborneOne (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it would be convenient to add that field. IATA names it "Accounting code (PAX)" and/or "Airline prefix code", as seen in their code look-up page: http://www.iata.org/publications/Pages/code-search.aspx. For instance, if you search for LH, you will see that the prefix code is 220. So, what about prefix_code for that new field? I can add it in case you agree. -- Denis.arnaud (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
As already mentioned this is not a travel guide and it has no encyclopedic value so I don't agree that it should be added here, perhaps a field for wikidata. MilborneOne (talk) 11:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)