Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines/Codes archive

This subpage was for the discussion of how and where to use any airline related codes within the article space.

Where to put codes

The codes being discussed are those assigned to the airline by IATA (airline code), ICAO (airline codes and call sign). Not all airlines have all of these codes assigned so not listing it leaves the question of 'is it missing or is it not listed?'

Currently several methods for displaying airline codes are used:

• {{Airline codes}}, usually after the airport name
• In the article under a heading that usually contains the work Codes
• Somewhere in the text of the article.
• In some cases, no codes are listed, but this is likely not going to be the suggestion so it is not discussed below.

There are advantages and disadvantages to all of these.

• {{Airline codes}}
  • Advantages
    • Entry in all articles is the same.
    • Changes made to the template show up in all of the articles with no additional work.
    • If/When the IATA codes stop being used, a simple change to the template will drop the display of this code on all pages.
    • Matches the format for Airport codes.
    • Compact display and in a standard position like we normally see for a company stock symbol.
    • Easy to add/change a category to all airline articles.
  • Disadvantages
    • If/When the IATA codes stop being used, changing the template may no longer display the historical IATA code.
    • Does not display as well if one of the codes is missing

• Codes heading
  • Advantages
    • Shows up in the TOC.
    • Uses more space so might be considered a better layout
  • Disadvantages
    • Making changes requires every article to be touched.
    • It's easy to add this entry with a link that goes through a redirect rather then directly to the correct page.

• Listed in the article
  • Advantages
    • Easier to include a code within the text when you discuss the historic significance of the code without listing the code multiple times.
  • Disadvantages
    • Difficult to find for updates and to see if one of the codes is missing.

Note: This discussion may be unimportant if the decision is to adopt an infobox and include the codes in the infobox. If that happens, the standard place would be the infobox. Vegaswikian 06:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• So it looks like the infobox is the place to put them. Dbinder 21:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Could be. I have some minor objections to removing them from the body, but I think the infobox is probably the right way to go. One problem could be from some of the people who don't like the template and want to see a codes section. But since we have tried to make the existance of this project know in several ways, I don't see how they can object to this decision in a public place. My summary above has been in place for about 4 weeks with no commnets. If your proposal does not get any objections in a day or two, I'd say make it the standard on the project page and feel free to start making changes. Vegaswikian 22:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• But what if there is no infobox? What is the "standard" place then? (i just had someone revert a change related to placement of codes, so i'd like a good standard for this.) -- Fudoreaper 07:38:15, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
  • I fell it should be to use the codes template for the reasons above. It is pretty much like the stock exchange information. BTW, I have no idea what way the revert was done. Vegaswikian 08:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I will give you 2 examples (in the last 24 hours) that show what i'm concerned about. 1. Aeroflot 2. Aero Caribbean. I just noticed that it's actually the same editor. He is removing the template and adding the "Codes" heading. But without a good standard, who is right, me or Adfern? (p.s. i have the same issue with airport codes.) -- Fudoreaper 20:17:03, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
      • Who is right? Neither. The consensus of the community is right. Since both the airlines and airport projects have similar issues and a similar solution, I would think that it seems clear in which direction this should be moving. That is to start adding the infobox and drop the codes heading. The jury is still out on the use of either codes template which I suspect will be retained as on option because of the redirect issue you raised earlier. Before doing a revert of those changes, if that is what you believe is right, I'd suggest adding the infobox before putting the codes template back in, if that is your desire. The project wants to get that template into all airline articles so doing that is a good approach for several reasons. Vegaswikian 20:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I should also add that the airline codes template is listed in the list of templates that can be used and there is no Codes section in the structure section. Those have been in place for a while. So with the infobox, that should address most cases. Vegaswikian 08:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • We can use both the infobox and the codes template inline. Some other information, such as the year of founding and the parent company name are included in the text. Dbinder 13:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, better idea: only use the codes template when there is no infobox. There are hundreds of airlines so implementing the infobox will take quite some time. In the meantime, the template should be used in those pages that don't have the box. Dbinder 20:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
      • So are you taking the position that the codes heading should be replaced by the airline codes template? I agree with that, but I want to make sure that the project consensus is to do that before I resume making those changes. Vegaswikian 21:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Code Heading for me

Thought I should enter the debate since I seem to be entering most of the new airline articles being developed and have been fostering a particular approach to codes which I think is preferable (see ABSA - Aerolinhas Brasileiras for instance). My preference is for codes to appear headlined in the body of the article to emphasise their importance and to make them clear for the ordinary reader. The template, in my view, just looks poor and does not give the codes sufficient emphasis. I have to say I find the infobox approach to be intrusive - it destroys the flow of the article, which has to be squashed up beside it, it is often hard to read, and I simply cannot see it being employed across all the hundreds of airline articles in place and to be developed (eg the Brazilian one above). In the interim while we perhaps await an infobox for every article I would suggest that the use of a code section is retained, as of the type that I employ. Sorry I didn't join in before now - been writing too many articles. No doubt I will hear from you all soon.Ardfern 23:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• While I think we should continue with the infobox - as long as you move the images around it doesn't cause formatting issues - I'm indifferent on whether to use the template or the Code Data heading for articles that don't yet have the box. The section/template should be removed once the box is in though. Dbinder 13:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)