Template talk:Infobox airport

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

Image Protocol[edit]

Is there an agreed protocol to use for the image and image2 variables? Should one be a photo of the terminal and the other should be a aerial view of the runway? Or is it more free form? I have some photos of general aviation airports and wanted to know where I should put them within the template. -Ichabod (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ichabod (talkcontribs) 03:29, 15 January 2014‎

Architect field in Infobox[edit]

Hi. I would like to propose adding the field of "Architect" to the infobox. For famous structures and buildings, it makes sense to cite who designed & built it. It is mentioned in most every article but not in the infobox.

For infobox_museums, it worked via embedding {{Infobox building}}, which has also got a few other architecture-related parameters, like |architectural_style= with this code:

{{Infobox museum|embedded={{Infobox building|embed=yes|architect=The architect}}}}
Infobox airport
Building details
Design and construction
Architect The architect

Can we do the same for Airports? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nconcklin (talkcontribs) 17:11, 7 August 2015‎

Runway Directions link no longer valid[edit]

The link to Direction is no longer valid. Not sure if a section should be re-added on the Runway page or the link here should be changed, just calling attention to it Phil (talk) 06:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  • It looks like the section previously called Orientation and direction is now called Naming, so possibly it is appropriate to just change the existing link on this template to that? Phil (talk) 06:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


I updated the sandbox with a proposal for keeping the background color explicit even when it should cascade from elsewhere. The change should not be visible to most users (see testcases), but ensures the content visible for everyone. —LLarson (said & done) 19:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd rather we used a paler header background and didn't overwrite link colours. Alternatively, we could unlink 'helipads' and 'runways'; they're edging on WP:OLINK. Izkala (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Re Izkala: Implemented just as you posted; those seem to be concerns that at issue prior to this change being made. Izno (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. This works for now anyway. Izkala (talk) 01:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 June 2016[edit]

Please update to my last sandbox version (diff) to track the numerous cases of location maps being embedded within the |ICAO= parameter rather than the proper |pushpin_*= parameters.

PanchoS (talk) 00:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@PanchoS: Could you point me to a page where this is being done? I'm wondering if there is a better way of finding this error than checking for closing </center> tags, but it's difficult to say without seeing an example. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
@Mr. Stradivarius: Sure, just take a look at Bandundu Airport, Bangoka International Airport, or Basankusu Airport. I guess searching for more complex substrings in the middle of the parameter wouldn't be better, so I figured the closing tag might be the best way. But see yourself. Cheers, PanchoS (talk) 00:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I was in the middle of syncing this in when I saw this response - it didn't look like it would cause any harm - but if there is a better way then I'm all for it; I undid my sync in. — xaosflux Talk 03:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
@Xaosflux and PanchoS: Ok, I see the problem. If the goal here is to just check for that specific error and then remove the tracking-category code once all the articles are cleaned up, then I think this solution is fine. If this is going to be a permanent thing, however, I would check that the value of the |ICAO= parameter is actually a valid ICAO code, and add a tracking category for all other input. Something like {{#if: {{#invoke:String|match|s={{{ICAO|}}}|pattern=^%w%w%w%w%w?%w?$|plain=false|nomatch=}} || [[Category:Some tracking category]] }} should do the trick - that would add the tracking category unless |ICAO= contains only 4-6 letters or numbers. (Or to be exact, 4-6 characters in the Unicode categories of "letter" or "decimal number".) This check could be made more rigorous as well, if you don't want to accept codes starting with a number, etc. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
@Mr. Stradivarius: Where are there codes with more than 4 alphanumerics? The current constraint on Wikidata for airport code is 4 alphanumerics, and I want to verify your claim. --Izno (talk) 11:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I just verified with our own article at International Civil Aviation Organization airport code; these are 4 alphanumerics, not any larger than that. Wikidata actually has a more rigorous constraint of ([A-Z]{2}|[CKY][A-Z0-9])[A-Z0-9]{2}. Speaking of which, why isn't this field at least using Wikidata? --Izno (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
@Izno: I was going by International Civil Aviation Organization airport code#Pseudo ICAO-codes, which says that France assigns codes up to six characters. But the six-character codes aren't official, so maybe we should ignore them. I suppose it depends on what is used in actual articles. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Right, unofficial codes. --Izno (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Synced sandbox to template, feel free to add another edit request if needed. — xaosflux Talk 11:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Thanks for syncing! @Mr. Stradivarius: This is of course only to fix the 170 articles (possibly more, let's see once all pages are recached), and immediately remove the tracking code. Your proposal may still be a good permanent solution to follow up with. Cheers, PanchoS (talk) 11:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Wow, the number is steadily growing. Might be a good use case for a bot. Do you have an idea which bot could do that task? --PanchoS (talk) 11:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I think a BRFA is warranted due to the thousands of pages in the category. You can try WP:BOTREQ and let someone else look into it. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 17:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)