Template talk:Infobox airline/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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)

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)

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)

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)


CBDunkerson has just added {{qif}} (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)

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)


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)

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)

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)

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)

Alignment problems

There appears to be some alignment problems of the infobox on FedEx Express (The box has almost equal space on each side of the divider, creating a lot of wasted space). Other airlines' infobox such as Continental Airlines clearly have more space on the right side and uses the space a lot better. Is there a way to fix this...is something casuing this alignment problem that can be fixed? Spikydan1 (talk) 04:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The width of the right column appears a bit wider to me, but not by much. Increasing the width of the logo would help (that seems to be the driving factor in how large the infobox is), but there's already a lot of wasted whitespace in the logo. If the excess whitespace were trimmed out of the logo, the width could be increased in the infobox and it ought to look better. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 06:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Second image?

Would it be a good idea to add
}}{{ #if: {{{image2|}}} {{{image<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} | <tr><td colspan="3" style="text-align: center; background-color: #FFFFFF;">[[Image:{{{image2}}}|{{#if:{{{image2-width|}}}|{{{image2-width}}}|200}}px]]</td></tr>
below the current logo. That way both the logo and a picture of the aircraft livery can be seen in the infobox somewhat similar to the airport articles, like Montréal-Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport. To test it set Template:X5 to that version and add
| image2 =
| image2-width = 200
below the logo. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 16:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Frequent Flyer Program

I think the text "Frequent Flyer Program" should be changed to something more 'airline-general' such as "Loyalty Program". Frequent Flyer is Qantas-specific as far as I know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a pressing need to change it, as the term is widely recognized as generic. And it's definitely not Qantas specific: Delta's program was called "Delta Frequent Flyer" from it's creation in 1981 until it was renamed SkyMiles in 1995. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 05:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ugly design

Anybody know why the design has been changed to a really ugly version - has this been discussed anywhere? Should it be reverted? MilborneOne (talk) 11:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The actual style changes were rather incidental to the code cleanup which took place, and can be reverted without undoing the whole lot. The test cases page has a comparison between the two styles. As far as I'm concerned the old design was "uglier" (on short infoboxes all the borders and colour rather overwhelm the content) but more importantly was arbitrary; the current version follows the recommended defaults of the {{infobox}} design, which have been widely copied throughout the encyclopedia's infobox templates, especially those for the aircraft project. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Just a note the original template does not appear following the test cases link ? MilborneOne (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I've moved the original styling to the sandbox, which is the version on the right. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Greetings, as an editor of many airline articles, I have some concerns about the infobox changes. While any code cleanup is good, and appreciated, the new appearance poses some questions:
  • The title {{{airline}}} is changed to a nearly colorless background, whereas before it had a blue one; in the examples given here it is shown with an picture afterwards. In most airline articles, a clear-background logo is used, not a picture. As a result of the change, the logo and name now appear to be in one space (e.g. Air France, British Airways, Japan Airlines). Perhaps the title could be positioned to appear above the box, such as in Template:infobox company? Alternatively, some background color could be re-added, or the logo moved above the title, as in the sample shown at Template:infobox#Examples.
  • The loss of boundary lines to different categories makes it more difficult to for the reader to distinguish the categories of information provided. Airline infoboxes often have multiple destination, lounge, city lists separated by <br/> and include multiple font sizes, boldface, bullet points, etc. While a clear infobox works quite well with single-line entries, airline articles usually have multiple entries (e.g. Air Canada, Continental Airlines, Emirates Airline). Boundary lines are a helpful visual aid; contrasting background colors could be used, but that would likely be too colorful. Perhaps some very light boundary lines?
  • A more minor issue, but related to the boundary lines question, namely the merging of the IATA, ICAO, and Callsign categories with less separation between the two. The 3-letter IATA/ICAO codes are given equal space to the Callsign code, which can be a longer word, thus taking up two lines (e.g. Air New Zealand) - depending on browser/font size. But the symmetrical look also has its merits; perhaps a lighter gray could be used?
Anyhow, just some thoughts from a concerned airline article editor. Regards SynergyStar (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
It is the loss of both horizontal and vertical boundary lines that appears to be odd after years of editing airline articles. The loss of vertical lines and spacing in the iata/icao/callsign now appears odd as Synergy has commented (the old (right) testcase version is still not the same as the original template!). MilborneOne (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Acknowledging that any changes may take some getting used to, and the apparent need to harmonize infobox styles with others, the question still remains whether such changes make a discernible improvement. Perhaps a more modern look can be achieved, while maintaining the organization. SynergyStar (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The change required to re-add the lines is the addition of a single word (the additional "bordered" CSS class). As for the relative widths of the IATA/ICAO/callsign cells, I've corrected that, and in a way which actually allows for more column flexibility than in the old code. As for the merits of a floating title rather than one embedded in the table, I'm actually strongly in favour of the floating title style, but I thought I'd take it (relatively) slowly here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting the cell relative width. A floating title (I assume that means above the infobox, like the earlier infobox:company example) sounds worth a try IMO. For the lines, it's good to know that the coding is quite simple; also perhaps other options could be considered, for instance in Template:infobox#Examples there are colored cells (more updated look?). The IATA/ICAO/callsign cells, could they be separated; instead of one single block, perhaps 3 cells side by side? SynergyStar (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
A floating title, code dividers have been added, of course should a better coding solution be available, improvements can be made. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

{undent} I think the now divided IATA/ICAO/callsign section and floating title has returned the infobox to a more acceptable version. The loss of the internal boundary lines may actually be useful, as it will discourage listing too many items (hubs, focus cities and destinations especially). I also think this template should be fully protected to avoid this situation in the future, but not until a final compromised version is reached. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 23:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy that it is a more acceptable design now that the IATA/ICAO bit has been divided, agree we should protect it as is. MilborneOne (talk) 10:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Good to hear that the fixes have met with your approval. Hopefully this represents a retention of the order along with some modernisation in the style. Just to note, the divider lines I added are white in color, given that other choices seemed to not work quite as well; and there were some coding changes made to achieve the borders (IATA/etc cells rearranged slightly) and floating title. I also updated the test cases to reflect the comparison between the two actual versions. Since the new infobox format, the IATA/ICAO/callsign links have been bolded, possibly because of the cell class. As for protection, I'd note that the page has been semi-protected to date. Should wiki adopt future infobox style revisions, this box might need to be available to be upgraded as well. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Full protection is for the prevention of widescale disruption by vandalism, not to avoid offending editors' aesthetic sensibilities. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Thought I will let you all know that I have made the relevant changes to the Template:Infobox Airline alliance to bring that infobox inline with the Airline infobox. Aviator006 (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Good idea, thx for harmonizing the two infoboxes. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 05:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

defunct airlines - key people

with regard to 'key people' for airlines that no longer exist. what are the guides for who should be included? should it, like all other company infoboxes, include the senior execs at the time of bankruptcy? --emerson7 23:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest to list only the last CEO, all CEOs and/or the founder. The idea of mentioning two or three "important" key people from all over the history of the company seems unrealistic, because too subjective. Belgian man (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Caption to image

Currently there is no provision for a caption to the image. Presumably this also affects alt text for the image. Given the general guidelines on lead images in infoboxes etc, why not set the image size to a fixed size and provide for a caption and alt text? GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure we need a caption when all that is normally in the image section is the airline logo, this also can cause problems with fixed sizes as some of the logos can be small gifs which look stupid if magnified to big. Can you have a default alt text that just says logo ? MilborneOne (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Caption might be useful in those pre-web cases where a logo is (for instance) displayed as part of an advertisement on a page. eg from an old copy of Flight but for most cases could be left blank. A default to logo for the alt text would be a little better than nothing at all. And fairly trivial to add to the template code ( "|alt=logo of airline" in the appropiate part). This is the guidance from WP:ALT "A helpful way to think about alt text is to imagine that the web page is a script for an audio recording, and that the page's alt text is the part of the recording that describes the image to someone who cannot see the image." GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Understood, I dont have a problem with your reasoning. MilborneOne (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Please don't default the alt text to anything. For purely decorational text, alt text can (and should) be omitted. In most cases this applies to logos. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
"purely decorative, that is, it has no function and is used only for visual formatting or decoration" is the text in the guidance on wikipedia but that text cites w3.org which actually says "if the image is used to create bullets in a list, a horizontal line, or other similar decoration, it is fine to have an empty alt attribute " and further down our guidance is a specific section which describes better what decorative images are (and I don't read it as including company logos in articles on the company) and says for decorative images we should add code so they are skipped. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Spanish reference

Someone that can edit this page, please update the spanish reference which is broken. Actually it points to w:es:Plantilla:Aerolínea but the correct link is w:es:Plantilla:Ficha_de_aerolínea. Thanks!. --PabloCastellano (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Just a note: interwikis are placed on the /doc subpage that isn't protected, so you could have done it yourself. And this template is only semi-protected, so you should be able to edit it too (you are autoconfirmed). Svick (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Bases? How do they work?

What was the intention of including the "Bases" entry in the infobox? What was it meant to be used for? Maintenance bases? I've created documentation for the infobox and couldn't find any references to Bases in the discussion pages. Since I couldn't figure out what Bases was intended for, it is the only entry with no guidance. I've accessed about 20 articles for U.S. airlines and the Lufthansa page and none of them use the "Bases" entry. (If its not widely used and not pretty important, maybe Bases could be removed?) Thanks. Ch Th Jo (talk) 05:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It should refer to operations/maintenance bases, places where their aircraft are based and maintained. - Ahunt (talk) 11:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Any reason to change it to Maintenance Bases, some of them could be Operating bases with no maintenance, suggest revert to bases it has been fine for many years like that. MilborneOne (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies and I have a concern. Listing "bases" in the -infobox- without understanding and clearly stating what kind of bases they are does not make sense to me. The infobox should be instantly clear to a reader and not open to misinterpretation. Having a vague header that could be maintenance bases or could be operating bases (or some third type, etc.) is not good editorial practice. The last place we want to be vague or indistinct is in an Infobox. If both maintenance bases and operating bases are important, then there should be two distinct fields. If "base" field isn't widely used, maybe it doesn't belong in the infobox. Could someone please list a few examples of articles that are using the "base" field in the Infobox? I'm sure they're out there, but I can't find any. (I added a couple to the Southwest article, so any others?) Ch Th Jo (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the concern is that having it vaguely defined in the past may have lead to it's being used for different things. Going in now and changing the label to "Maintenance bases" would lead to articles that have used it for something else being incorrect. An audit of its use would seem to be appropriate before redefining it, though I'm not sure offhand how to do the search you suggest. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I think Ch Th Jo's concern needs to be looked at, although I dont think we should have changed the name yet (but no point in reverting until we come up with an answer). I suspect in a lot of articles what we would consider the maintenance/operational base has been entered into the hub field (as it is widely used even when airlines dont operate a hub). If you can wait I will look at the usage in a sample of articles and report back. MilborneOne (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Template description word changed from "Maintenance Bases" to "Operations Bases" because research showed that the base field in the Infobox is populated in articles primarily about UK-based air carriers. The term seems to be appx. equivalent to "focus city" (Its not just the articles - Ryanair corporate material also uses the term "base"). The Ryanair article has 45 'bases' listed, easyjet also has a list of bases as long as my arm - clearly those aren't major maintenance bases. Even though most people probably don't read it, the template documentation will clearly explain that "bases" is a term used by certain airlines, primarily in the UK, similar to focus city etc.

Is Operations Bases acceptable? Although "Bases" is open to misinterpretation, I'm OK with that term considering that the template documentation will explain the intended use of the field.

Research results

Manually checking articles from carriers worldwide, majors, minors, dicounters, etc:


12 articles have information listed in the bases field. (AWW, EIN, EXS, EZE, EZY, GRE, JBU, MON, NKS, RYR, VIR, WZZ)

These 12 carriers are primarily U.K. based, so this may be British English vs. American English? Regardless, my previous skepticism about that field's importance is gone and I now think that the "bases" field is as necessary an entry as "hubs", "secondary hubs" or "focus cities" Ch Th Jo (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

2 of them (NKS and JBU) are American carriers which uses the "base" term. Sb617 (Talk) 10:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that summary - prefer Operating rather than Operations but not a big deal wither way. I suspect that we may need to add at some point Maintenance Base as some airlines do have seperate Operating and Maintenance Bases (British Airways at Cardiff is a Maintenance Base only I believe). Although only slightly related I dont think we have an article on Airline bases so I might see if I can find a reliable source to see if it is worth producing something. MilborneOne (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Operations -> Operating change made to template. I'll watch for comments/feedback/objections but this issue seems settled to me. Thanks for the help. Ch Th Jo (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Template needs a tweak

Can we have an option to turn off IATA, ICAO and Callsign please. See Air Union for an example of why this is needed. Mjroots (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

(I believe that the correct action to request is to change those fields from "required" to "optional"?) For whatever reason those things were never assigned to that airline and therefore "None" is in fact correct. (In this case the airline became defunct before those signifiers were assigned and/or globally governed, right?) Having no information (or a blank) suggests that the information is out there somewhere but no one has taken the time to look it up and edit the article. In a case like this a positive entry of "None" makes it clear that those concepts do not apply. (Perhaps "N/A" or "Not Applicable" is a better entry?) I'd rather see positive acknowledgment that those aviation concepts/signifiers don't apply than see a blank that will leave readers wondering. Since most airline articles' infoboxes include that info, having a few articles that leave an unexplained blank is likely to confuse readers, especially those who are "novices" not yet familiar with many of the concepts in aviation, airlines, etc. Rather than changing the template code, I support leaving IATA, ICAO and Callsign as required fields but updating the template documentation with instructions to enter "None" (or N/A or Not applicable -whatever consensus suggests) when those fields do not apply. Ch Th Jo (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
The reason the codes were not assigned is because the airline was in (and out of) existence long before such codes were thought of. Mjroots (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Frequent flyer programme vs program

I know this is minor, but I suggest adding some way of selecting either correct spelling of programme or program, to better tailor the frequent_flyer parameter to all worldwide English speakers, not just those of North America. Maybe having parameters frequent_flyer_int and frequent_flyer_na respectively instead? Thanks, The Z UKBG (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 21 November 2011

This template has a typo in it that can cause formatting issues: |+ colspan=2 class="fn org" style="text-align: center; font-size: 125; font-weight:bold" | {{{airline}}} It says: font-size: 125; This is clearly incorrect and should read 125%. Robert Chin (talk) 07:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Checked [8] [9] and I agree; please just add "%".  Chzz  ►  09:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 Done T. Canens (talk) 09:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 25 November 2011

please change "IACO" to "ICAO" because it is in error

Meltdown627 (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Most templates with the blue "documentation" box are set up so any editor can fix the documentation, using the "edit" link at the top of the blue box. Anomie 18:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Tweak request for "Website" parameter

Considering that many (most?) airline articles are for defunct airlines, it's obvious that sooner or later their website goes offline.

My idea: Use the "ceased" value as a "switch", which when it's "on", would convert the value in the "website" parameter to the following:

http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/{{WEBSITE VALUE}}

Care should be taken with the following usage scenarios:

  • The "website" value has already a link to archive.org
  • The link has a title (e.g.- [http://WEBSITE.com Website.com])
  • Address headers "http", "www", etc., is taken care of by archive .org, so one problem less

This proposal definitely follows the engineers rule that 'If it ain't broken, fix it till it breaks', but IMHO, definitely makes sense, and may be worth it! --Ben Stone 03:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge with Infobox Company

I'll second the proposal above. There are exactly zero airlines using this box that are not also companies of some sort, and we should be able to include the corporate information without resorting to using both templates in an unsightly fashion. Another option would be to finish including all the corporate fields here.

Particularly, the template needs the "Footnote" / "References" field at the bottom to avoid needless and unsightly repetition of cites and year data after every single field. — LlywelynII 11:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Related, but minor: there should be an option and documentation about an ability to make "hubs" &c. singular where appropriate.
"Company slogan" should definitely just be "Slogan". Probably ought to go under the logo centered and without any other text whatever if we're going to bother to include them. (Generally not really notable, falls under advertizing, etc.) — LlywelynII 12:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge this template with company template

Would it be possible to include all company template infos with the airline template? There are several airline articles having both templates on one page. Please see SpiceJet and Jet Airways... Thanks.--Malaikaran (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Airlines and companies are not always the same thing, only the Jet Airways one has both so perhaps it should be changed to be similar to the SpiceJet article which only has the airline infobox. MilborneOne (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Airplanes may not be the same thing. Airlines always are: if they're not a company on their own, they're someone's subsidiary or operating division. — LlywelynII 12:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

upgrade to infobox

I have created a version in the sandbox which upgrades the base code to use {{infobox}}. I request that we upgrade the live version to use this code. this will reduce the amount of code, and allow other things to work (like lists in data entries without the <div>...</div> or <nowiki>...</nowiki>, see Air Southwest). thank you. Frietjes (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I can do it if none disagrees. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 Done -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


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)

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

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)
 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)

Caption for image

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)