Template talk:Infobox airport

Hi, please change this code:

| data35     = {{#invoke:Infobox mapframe|auto|mapframe-marker=airport}}

to this code:

| data35     = {{#invoke:Infobox mapframe|auto|mapframe-marker=airport|mapframe-wikidata = yes|onByDefault=yes}}

to show the boder of airport on all articles. See e.g., Changi Airport that the border of airport is not shown. Thanks, Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

See this sandbox that works properly for Changi Airport. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Description of suggested change: addition of parameter "Purpose", for infoboxes like Mactan–Cebu, missing indication that only one runway is in active use.

example preview (ofc. making the infobox about 3 or 5 pixels wider to the ):

Diff:

} D4n2016 (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The code below appears to be TemplateData code for the documentation page, not template code. This suggestion also needs consensus. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I used {{efn}} to give the information. I'm not sure that a change to the infobox is needed to do something that isn't going to be used often. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 04:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Template:Infobox hospital has a line for "former-names." Would this be a reasonable line to include for airports? Alpacaaviator (talk) 13:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

As it is now, the image, pushpin map, and mapframe all have different default sizes. Therefore they all jog in or out, and the infobox is unsightly. By making all default sizes 250px, the images and maps line up and the infobox is consistent with other infoboxes (see sandbox and testcases for comparisons). The code to change is as follows:

Thanks. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

If there is any way to use the viewer's thumb size preference instead, that would be preferable, per MOS:IMGSIZE: Except with very good reason, a fixed width in pixels (e.g. 17px) should not be specified, because it ignores the user's base width setting. Thus upright=scaling factor is preferred when it is desired to present an image at other than the default width. I have asked at Module talk:Location map and Template talk:Infobox mapframe to see if there is a way to make this happen. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Jonesey95: The context of MOS:IMGSIZE is clearly about stand-alone images, not ones in infoboxes. To have uniformly formatted infoboxes should be the standard. That's why almost all infoboxes have their images set to specific sizes, not scaling factors (which actually make size preferences irrelevant anyway). -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I disagree with your interpretation of that MOS page. I agree about the standardization. I have my default thumb size set to 300px, so the images on the testcases page look too small for me. InfoboxImage already uses frameless and |upright=1. How do we standardize by applying that option to the Location map and the Mapframe map? – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Jonesey95: Whatever the outcome of the other discussions, the fact remains that this infobox looks terrible with the images and maps all different sizes. The other threads may have opened up a much wider discussion, so in the meantime, the changes as proposed above can be implemented until another solution is found. Thanks. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:34, 16 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

If there is no technical way to comply with MOS, then I suppose consistent px sizing is the least bad option. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I also disagree; images in infoboxes should stick to using the default image size. afaict the problem is that maps do not know how to size themselves to fit the user's preferences. SWinxy (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

@SWinxy and Jonesey95: You may disagree with it, but reality is that the majority of infoboxes have hard-coded image sizes. That is actually better anyway for infoboxes. E.g. I have set my default image small to 200px but that is too small for infoboxes which I don't mind being larger (anyway, this is subjective and we're not here to discuss that). In any case, if "maps do not know how to size themselves to fit the user's preferences", then at least make them uniform!!! That's all I want for this edit request... -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I can't think of any infoboxes off of the top of my head that do this. For example, Template:Infobox person and all the infoboxes that inherit it, do not set a default image size (in fact, it's usage is deprecated). Module:InfoboxImage discourages manually setting the size. Rather, it is expected the template pass along the image size entered by the editor. SWinxy (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Description of suggested change: Hello! This suggestion aims to allow more technical data about airports and aerodromes to be added to the template.

The suggestion is that, new parameters are added to include the ability to add an airport plate (such as an Approach plate or, more likely, a ground overview plate) as well as the ability to add frequencies for Air Traffic Control (aiming mainly at the most important frequencies - tower, ATIS, approach and ground, plus an additional parameter for extras (eg. UNICOM or for other less common frequencies) .

Let me know your thoughts! Moonbloom (talk) 03:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Diff:

  Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I can try, but I find CSS editing really hard. Is there a reference manual for this somewhere? Moonbloom (talk) 05:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

General information about how infoboxes work is at Template:Infobox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Hike395 Hi, I strongly disagree with this edit. In my opinion, OSM map contains shape and "inside data" of airport, in contrast to Pushpin map which provides ___location and "outside data" of airport. Therefore, these maps are complementary of each other and they should not be used exclusively. In addition, OSM provides zooming option which is very useful for any viewer. Thanks, Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Hooman Mallahzadeh:. Please see Wikipedia:Mapframe maps in infoboxes. There was an RfC in 2020 that established that mapframe maps should not be on by default, because of lack of consensus to do so. Given that lack of consensus, a local consensus on this Talk page could establish "on by default", but it should be an outcome of a discussion, rather than one editor's opinion. Would you like to start such a discussion? — hike395 (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Hike395 Yes I agree, please make discussion. Because I really think that many readers would like to see inside shape of airport in addition to its ___location. Thanks for your answer. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 03:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

On October 15, 2024, Hooman Mallahzadeh made an edit request to make a mapframe map always be on by default for this template: their argument is in the section, above.

There is no global consensus to have mapframe maps on by default. Most other infoboxes have mapframe on by default only if there is no other map, in order to prevent infoboxes from getting too long.

What do editors think: should this infobox always have a mapframe map?

Pinging @CambridgeBayWeather, Zyxw, Frietjes, Joy who have edited this template or who have worked with mapframes in other templates. — hike395 (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Looking at the code, we have two preconditions right now: pushpin_map and image_map.

I don't know that showing both a default mapframe and a (custom) image map would be a good default. We don't know what the image map is like, we don't know its zoom level, we can't really predict well if they fit well together. Someone would have to actually do a review of these to even know the current state, and even that still wouldn't mean much for predictions.

OTOH I think there can be value in showing both a pushpin (___location) map and a mapframe because the former will usually be on the scale of a country or a region, so it will typically be far more zoomed out than a mapframe map. So the former will typically show the wider context, while the latter will typically show the immediate surroundings, and the layout of the buildings and runways.

Often times, I've seen people complain that infoboxes are already too long, and that we shouldn't add too many elements into them. If that's also the vibe here, then I'd say just allow mapframe to override ___location maps by default, and see how that goes. A mapframe is relatively easily zoomed out to country and region level, so it's basically superior. --Joy (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't remember where, but someone suggested that there should be an option to have the mapframe map as one of the maps in the "switcher". for example, right now in Heathrow Airport, we have both the ___location map "switcher" and the mapframe map. the suggestion would be to have the mapframe map as one of the switchable maps instead of having it separate. I don't really have a strong opinion here. I can also see the argument that the mapframe map is all you really need because it is zoomable. Frietjes (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, if we implemented mapframe into {{___location map}} that would be the most obvious compromise, that would work generally. But, for some reason, we never did. I don't know if anyone ever tried, or how hard it might be. --Joy (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)Reply