Template talk:Infobox airport/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Formal edit request

Please change the color of the text from white to black on Template:Infobox airport, becasue the current color scheme violates WP:COLOR. Grapesoda22 23:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Done GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@GeoffreyT2000: The hyperlinks are still colored white. Grapesoda22 04:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Grapesoda22: A further change by Jonesey95 was made to the template, and I also changed the color for Air Force Materiel Command from white to black in the template documentation. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 05:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Grapesoda22 00:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Grapesoda22, your signature violates WP:SIGLINK. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@GeoffreyT2000, @Grapesoda22: What is the specific violation of WP:COLOR? In my opinion, black on dark blue is much harder to read than white on dark blue. I don't agree with this sudden change to a template found on about 14,000 pages. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 20:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Sunnya343, we could make the background color lighter or darker. But, 669ACD/black = 7.07 is a much greater contrast than 669ACD/white = 2.97. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@GeoffreyT2000: The contrast ratio has to be at least 7 on this checker. Grapesoda22 (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Sunnya343, if you want white text, the lightest alternative (ratio greater than 7) would be  3C5A78 . Thanks Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Plastikspork, the current situation still doesn't seem optimal to me. Could we try this, which has a higher contrast ratio of 13.65:  CCCCFF . This is the style for the Major US Airports template. Regards — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 03:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Sunnya343, that's better, and even better would be  DDDDFF  which has a 15.86 contrast ratio. this is the secondary color used by {{navbox}} as set by MediaWiki:Common.css. Frietjes (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Frietjes, could you try implementing your suggestion? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

done, using the "Level 2 color" defined by MediaWiki:Common.css, and the "Level 3 color" in the data table. Frietjes (talk) 14:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Frietjes, it looks much better now. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 16:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Improving colors once more

• This is not good enough yet. The {{navbox}} colors were chosen and set to make a navbox recognisable as ... being a navbox (color supporting the semantics/meaning).

Let's start with a different color ('hue'), and then varying into two shades (calculations were done offline). I propose:

Hue: a different blue:   (H=140/360; it should be a skyish blue of course)

'level 2':  AAE6FF     (140-85/255-255/255). Ratio: 15.47 Y (changed after OP)

'level 3':  CDF0FF     (140-50/255-255/255). Ratio: 17.5 Y

OK? -DePiep (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Now in testcases. -DePiep (talk) 01:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Changed the first color into #AAE6FF (darker) to get more diff with the lighter one. -DePiep (talk) 08:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Title bar background now the same as headers. Shall I propose a darker 'level-1' color for the title? -DePiep (talk) 08:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

2nd proposal: add a separate title bar color.

'level 1':  87DCFF     (140-120/255-255/255). Ratio: 13.71 Y

A tile bar is something else as a header bar (semantics). -DePiep (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• @GeoffreyT2000, Jonesey95, Plastikspork, Sunnya343, Grapesoda22, and Frietjes::

Pls consider the proposal, see the testcases. -DePiep (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Everything looks good in the test cases except the white on gray on blue of "Air Force Materiel Command". That should be the same black on blue of the other headers. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

That "Air Force Materiel Command" (looks bad) is entered as a style if by an individual article editor. Not a useful testcase. I'll remove it. -DePiep (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I really think the current colors are fine. That bright blue is off-putting to me. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 22:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

You could ask for an other kind of blue (or purple. For airfields?), I'm just throwing a first ball.

What do you think of that new 3rd, separate color for the title background? Can you agree with me that the infobox title should be distinct from a header?

About semantics, the meaning of a color on a website. To put it straight: If I'd mention this issue on a relevant Wiki forum, this "abuse of navbox colors" would not survive. -DePiep (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a serious issue with using the same colour more than once. this search returns several thousand. but I also don't object to using a different colour scheme. a light sky blue or a light steel blue would work for me. Frietjes (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

"More than once" is not the issue. "For multiple meanings" is. Especially since this is an infobox, confusion with a (sidebar) navbox is too easy. Hell, people were coding class="navbox" and then came complaints that the nice table did not print. Semantics. (btw, a very 'otherstuffexists' argument you made). -DePiep (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Issue with Statistics field on mobile view

On mobile view, the Statistics field often shortend and shift to left when you see it on your phone. To fix this, I replaced |subbox= by |child=, and the field is displaying properly on the test cases while I see it on mobile browser. -- Great Brightstar (talk) 04:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Great Brightstar, I believe the use of "subbox" here was intentional to prevent the labels from having the same width as the labels in the rest of the infobox. For example, in first test, you can see that the statistics labels are very long compared to the labels at the top of the page. The sandbox version wraps the labels in the statistics block, but the live template does not. Can you modify the sandbox so this unnecessary wrapping doesn't happen? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Plastikspork: OK, I understand. The problem for subbox is mainly because of the mobile view inject display:block for the most of table elements if the screen is narrower than 720 px, which cause display problems for some smaller tables, I've proposed a solution at MediaWiki talk:Common.css. -- Great Brightstar (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 October 2021

This is a very minor edit request.

At label19 = Elevation [[Metres above sea level|AMSL]], have AMSL link to Height above sea level as that's the current target. – The Grid (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

okay. Frietjes (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Number of gates in the infobox

I think there should be an option to include the number of active gates being used by the airport in the infobox. The number of active gates is a quick and broadly easily understandable way to demonstrate and show the scale of an airport's operations. Airports themselves recognize this, too: that is why whenever airports expand, they usually communicate the size of the expansion at least partly in terms of the number of new gates added. For example, Nashville International Airport would typically talk about its new international gates in promotional materials. This is because the number of gates is far more tangible than, e.g., passenger capacity. We can't envision what it would mean for an airport to handle, say, 6 million more people annually. But we can certainly envision what it would mean for an airport to have 15 more gates.--Henrygg98 (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Short description?

Would there be any objection to adding a "type in location" short description to this infobox? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

That looks like a good idea to me. You can test it in the sandbox if you are feeling brave. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm just going to port over the fairly light type in location code from the other infoboxes I've added this to. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Image Protocol

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 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 15 January 2014‎ (UTC)

Architect field in Infobox

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/Archive 6

Building details
Design and construction
Architect(s)	The architect

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

The meaning of grass

There are about 300 articles where the runway surface has been specified as "grass". The trouble is, grass is a redirect to the plant family Poaceae, and that's clearly not the intended meaning here. The closest things that I can see are turf/sod and lawn. Which one is the better target article? – Uanfala (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The better solution is to unlink grass, asphalt, and concrete used in airport articles per MOS:OL. MB 23:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

That's an option as well. And another one is to go the MOS:SPECIFICLINK route and pipe via something like Grass runway, which can be created as a redirect to Runway#Pavement surface (though the only grass-related content there at the moment is a brief mention with an example pictured). – Uanfala (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Sure, in prose. But in the airport info box, the usage is Runway: and saying Runway: Grass runway is awkward/wordy and just piping grass is an Easter egg link... MB 02:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

There's a similar thread at Template talk:Infobox venue#Grass as a surface in sports venues. – Uanfala (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

There are also a lot of runway-related links of the form [[grass|turf]], mostly within article prose (almost 460 of them [1]). Whatever we decide about linking in the infobox field will probably apply to most of these as well. – Uanfala (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• Unlink whatever the runway type is in the infobox. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

A link to a general article on grass is not in any way helpful. It's a common English word, everyone knows what grass is. That being said, a link to an article on grass runways, how they're maintained and what's different than just a field, I'd support a link to. But just to grass or anything that's not specifically talking about runways? Nope. Canterbury Tail talk 14:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Such a specific article doesn't exist (yet?), though there's the redirect Grass airstrip (which I created recently), which points to an article section with a brief mention of grass runways. – Uanfala (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Base param

Base is listed as a param in the doc, but it doesn’t work. This would be a good param to have for airlines like JetBlue and Southwest that don’t have hubs but do have operating bases. RickyCourtney (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

That parameter documentation was added in error. I can't find a record of this parameter ever existing in the template. Do you have a source describing the "base" for a few airlines? How many articles would use this parameter? – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jonesey95 A good example would be Form 10-K for JetBlue which lists its bases on page 24, or the Form 10-K for Allegiant, which lists its bases on page 29. This information can also be matched up to the similar paramter in Template:Infobox airline. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)