Template talk:Airreg
 | This template was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Airdisaster.com
[edit]I would like to incorporate disasters in (with a parameter, perhaps). Airdisaster.com supports searches via http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/search_keyword.cgi?search=OK-DBF as an example. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- I find the amount of content insufficient, in proportion to the site advertising (the big annoying banner advertisement and the google ads). I would much rather keep the links to the official authorities (and most reliable source), such as the FAA. --Aude (talk contribs) 19:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- The airdisaster links, such as the one on Korean Air Flight 007, are not too helpful. [1] Thinking more about this, I'm not sure this template is needed at all. It would be better to reference the N-Number and aircraft type, using ref tags with sources linked in the references section, per WP:CITE. And, in referencing these details, I would prefer an official source such as the FAA, or perhaps something like aviation-safety.net which provides more details, with good references (and no ads). --Aude (talk contribs) 19:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- I believe it to be useful. Airdisaster.com has a load of useful information, and often presented in a cleaner manner than the Authority pages. However, if someone can find a way to cleanly link into Authority pages, it should probably be done. By the way, please note which four pages you deleted the template from so that if this is voted down, we can reverse your edits. Thank you. Just because you don't like airdiasaster.com is no reason to delete the whole template.
- I would much prefer having the links in the references section. As such, a template may not be needed. Or maybe the template can be set-up to provide the referencing. --Aude (talk contribs) 22:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't just like airdisaster.com, but all sites that overdo on the advertising. Instead of airdisaster.com, we could reference official agency databases, which would satify Wikipedia's reliable sources policy. It's also important to have uniform style of referencing in articles, per WP:CITE. That usually means putting reference links at the end of the article, and using the ref tag. To mix that with embedded HTML is problematic. I have tried modifying the template to use ref tags, but it doesn't work. [2] For now, I suggest referencing the Aircraft registration number without the template. If the FAA or other sources come along and change the way he links work, we can always use a bot or AutoWikiBrowser to update the links. --Aude (talk contribs) 02:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- That seems silly, and I think bots are just as annoying as you apparently find airdisaster.com to be. Anyhow, your vendetta against this site should be decoupled from discussion of the Airreg template. You are mixing issues. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 06:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Airdisaster.com also serves up a pop-up ad, annoyingly circumventing my pop-up blocker. No way is this a suitable site to link to from Wikipedia. --Aude (talk contribs) 02:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't just like airdisaster.com, but all sites that overdo on the advertising. Instead of airdisaster.com, we could reference official agency databases, which would satify Wikipedia's reliable sources policy. It's also important to have uniform style of referencing in articles, per WP:CITE. That usually means putting reference links at the end of the article, and using the ref tag. To mix that with embedded HTML is problematic. I have tried modifying the template to use ref tags, but it doesn't work. [2] For now, I suggest referencing the Aircraft registration number without the template. If the FAA or other sources come along and change the way he links work, we can always use a bot or AutoWikiBrowser to update the links. --Aude (talk contribs) 02:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- I would much prefer having the links in the references section. As such, a template may not be needed. Or maybe the template can be set-up to provide the referencing. --Aude (talk contribs) 22:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- That would add unnecessary clutter to some articles. I think the current form is intuitive. In addition, by having it be a template, if the Authority changes their database query system, if you use references, you have to change a ton of articles. This way, one only needs to change it in one place. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 22:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Suggestions
[edit]How about taking each article on a case-by-case basis and determining the best source in each instance, and the best way to reference. If the article already adopted some referencing style, that should be used for referencing the registration number, rather than mixing referencing styles. --Aude (talk contribs) 14:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Here's another suggestion... let's keep the template but only use it in the {{Infobox Aircraft accident}}. External links are somewhat commonly used in infoboxes. Again, let's also consider the best sources for the tail number on a case-by-case basis, favoring official sites but not ruling out unofficial sites (including airdisaster.com) if the amount and quality of content on those significantly outweighs what's available on the official site. --Aude (talk contribs) 14:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
As an example, I searched United Airlines Flight 173 and found:
- airdisaster.com - Investigative report and Accident Synopsis
- aviation-safety.net - Accident description, which cites the NTSB report as a source and provides a link to the aircraft accident report from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.
- NTSB - Synopsis and Publications, with NTSB Report Number: AAR-79-07 and NTIS Report Number: NTISUB/E/104-007 listed, but probably not available online from the FAA or NTSB
Per WP:RS, source #3 (NTSB) would be preferred but not all information is readily available online from them. The Embry-Riddle source is also good, as an academic source which is making available the official government report. aviation-safety would be my next choice, as the information is presented in clear manner with good references, and no advertisements overwhelming the reader. The "Investigative report" page on airdisaster.com is also acceptable as a source, as it directly transcribes the NTSB report that's available from Embry-Riddle. However, the "Accident synopsis" only provides a few details (date, airline, aircraft, location, registration number, flight number, fatalities, MSN, line number, engine manufacturer and model, and year of delivery). The same information (and more) is available without the banner ad on aviation-safety and in the NTSB report. --Aude (talk contribs) 15:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Though, aviation-safety doesn't allow one to incorporate the N-number in the url. A traditional reference, with ref tag, is needed in this case. In other cases, the FAA or airdisaster.com might be the best sources, in which case the template could be used. --Aude (talk contribs) 15:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Template usage:
[edit]Below is a list articles using the template, and which source they link to. Overwhemingly, airdisaster.com is used, which I feel is inappropriate per WP:EL, WP:RS, and possibly WP:SPAM (due to the extensive advertising). I don't think this template is needed at all. If anything, only links to official sites are suitable. --Aude (talk contribs) 21:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
articles using the template
|
|---|
Numerous links
RAB (Brazil)
PLH (Hungary)
Transport Canada
CAA (UK)
FAA
Airfleets.net
Airdisaster.com
Non-articles
|
Spam?
[edit]Airdisaster.com seems to be pop-up city... this template is effectively sending spammers traffic. I move that the airdisaster.com link be changed (it's not much of a site anyway), perhaps to ASN. Dan100 (Talk) 23:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, we should more it to another site. – Zntrip 18:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- As with my comments above, I still don't think we should link to the site in this manner. I don't really think we need the template at all. Just the ID number and no link suffices. Even with book ISBN numbers, we don't link to particular sites (favoring one over others). People can look it up if they want. --Aude (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Suggestions
[edit]Does anyone have good suggestions on how to make the template link to something more informative and consistent with WP:EL? --Aude (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
What alternatives do we have besides airdisaster.com that can be the default option on this template for disasters? I have looked around quite a bit and found aviation-safety.net to be the most informative. But, the site uses the record number to get information from the database, rather than the tail number. Any ideas on possible sites to use or how to make the template work with this site? --Aude (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've made this change: If the third parameter is set to "aviation-safety", then {{airreg|19970109|0|aviation-safety}} gives 19970109-0aviation-safety. The first parameter is the date and the second is the accident number for that date. Is there a consensus to replace links to airdisaster.com with these? Or can they complement airdisaster.com by listing both? –Pomte 21:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- I suspect the reason the template creator used airdisaster.com is that it supported using the N-number as a parameter. Making the change to use the other parameter, would require manually changing each instance of where the template is used. It's less than 200 pages, which is doable. The reason for the change is that the airdisaster.com pages really fall under "what not to link to" in WP:EL, since I think many people find pop-up ads that circumvent popup blockers to be objectionable. Wouldn't be as bad if this link was listed in the "External links" section of articles, but these links are often placed in infoboxes and inline in article text. --Aude (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The only way to do a "bait and switch", switching out airdisaster.com and replacing it with the other site is to contact them and ask if they could accommodate us. They might be willing to tweak the site's code to make it that information can be retrieved via tail number. --Aude (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- If they don't, we can do it ourselves manually by changing all the uses of {{Airreg}}. The articles should already include the date of the accident, so it's easy to identify the first part of the
id(YYYYMMDD). The second part, the single number, can be found by checking the year list. Most often it will be 0. Since this doesn't use the same format as the other links in {{Airreg}}, a new template can be created for this purpose. –Pomte 02:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Cite errors
[edit]This edit introduced four insightly cite errors which seem to persist to this day because "You can only use #tag:ref once as a list-defined reference" per Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no key#Issues and resolution. What can we do about this problem? Remove "#tag:ref" from the template? Add a parameter for multiple use in the same page? Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- The error message is bogus; the issue is with using {{#tag:ref}} inside
<ref>...</ref>. Perhaps we could add an option for using the old output format, for when the template is used inside references. Alakzi (talk) 11:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)- Not exactly sure what the ref tag was trying to achieve on the Boeing 747SP article; if it was intended simply as a reference to the FAA registry, then it's now entirely redundant, as the Airreg template takes care of the ref tag by itself – see my edit there, which gets rid of the Cite Errors. The #tag:ref inside the template is needed in order to generate the footnote reference; it cannot be removed without disabling the whole template. By the way, I'm working my way through the 250-odd articles that use the Airreg template to fix any one that is broken. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Just to note I have been through a lot of the instances to clear an issue when it still has disaster in the template it shows in plain text "N707PAdisaster", hope I caught most of them. MilborneOne (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, MilborneOne. By the time I get to the bottom of my list, I should pick up all the remaining ones. --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Just to note I have been through a lot of the instances to clear an issue when it still has disaster in the template it shows in plain text "N707PAdisaster", hope I caught most of them. MilborneOne (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Not exactly sure what the ref tag was trying to achieve on the Boeing 747SP article; if it was intended simply as a reference to the FAA registry, then it's now entirely redundant, as the Airreg template takes care of the ref tag by itself – see my edit there, which gets rid of the Cite Errors. The #tag:ref inside the template is needed in order to generate the footnote reference; it cannot be removed without disabling the whole template. By the way, I'm working my way through the 250-odd articles that use the Airreg template to fix any one that is broken. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)