Template talk:Infobox military installation/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

New parameters

Perhaps a field for noting if a structure was captured, and by whom? --Loopy ^e 03:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added a "Notable battles" field (as in the unit infobox); presumably any notable sieges/captures can be indicated there. —Kirill Lokshin 16:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I think primary construction materials would be a good one considering could cover things like wooden forts.

There are some additional parameters I'd like to have, but they're fairly specific. For defensive lines I'd like to see # of emplacements/bunkers and length, but that wouldn't make much sense on a castle. Oberiko 05:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added a "materials" field; I'm not sure if we'd want to have any extensive breakdown of emplacements in the infobox, given how complex that could get. —Kirill Lokshin 14:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

additional related infobox

What about an infobox relating just to a base or facility? This infobox seems more geared to a building or structure - something that could be part of a base, but not all of a base. Thoughts, comments? - NDCompuGeek 06:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been used quite well for an entire base, too; it's just that a lot of parameters don't get used, in that scenario. Are there additional fields that you'd like to see added? Kirill Lokshin 10:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

What about the PIN (Permanent Installation Number), ILC (Installation Location Code), Installation Location Kind (ILK), or other types of facility identification? (See http://www.airforcebase.net/inst_101.html for further information.) Just a suggestion.... - NDCompuGeek 00:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a problem to add a field for them, but is there a generic term we could used for the various types here? Kirill Lokshin 02:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Geez, making me think! :-) I was thinking of something like "locationcode" or "facilitycode" or the like. I believe that the ILC nomenclature is U.S. military-wide, not just for the Air Force, so it would be applicable to all US military branches. Not too sure about the military nomenclature for other countries.... Another item that I would find useful is map coordinates, in addition to geographic location (possibly using {{coor dms}} as a basis). - NDCompuGeek 07:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've added a |code= field to the box; does that work? Kirill Lokshin 13:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

←←(unindent conversation)←← That should - thanks. I've made a few calls to Minot AFB for further information about this location code. Hopefully they can point me to the AFI that has more information about it. They only other thing I can think to add is the map coordinates thingy - maybe either inline with the rest of the information or put it up to like it is now (as a separate function instead of being built into this template though). Just a suggestion.... And, again, thanks for incorporating the "code" into the infobox! - NDCompuGeek 19:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, given the lack of objections, I've gone ahead and added a |coordinates= field. Kirill Lokshin 23:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

microformat

I'd like to add the hCard microformat (see WP:UF for background) to this template, To do this, I need to add class="vcard" to the top level container; but in this case, that's in another template, which also applies to other infoboxes, where it wouldn't be relevant. How can I add that class to this infobox only? Andy Mabbett 13:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

See {{Infobox Military Person}}. ;-)

(I've added the vcard class, but I have no idea what others may be necessary; so you'll need to figure that out.) Kirill Lokshin 17:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I've added the rest. Andy Mabbett 18:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Open to public

Added an "open to the public" field following a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish castles. Thanks, Edward Waverley 12:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. I've changed the parameter name to use underscores rather than dashes, as that's the more common convention for such things; hopefully that didn't break anything. Kirill Lokshin 14:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill, I'm always nervous about editing templates but it seems to work OK. Edward Waverley

Location map?

Would it be possible to add the option of a location map into this template? Template:Infobox Historic building has this function, using the Template:Location map set up (example here), and I think this would be really helpful for military buildings too. Presumably the relevant bits can be copied from that template to this, but I've no idea how to do it. Can anyone help? Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 08:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think I worked it out. I hope I didn't break anything, feel free to post rude messages on my talk page if I did :) Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Could someone have a look at Moorish Castle please? I can't get the latitude and longitude parameters to get the pointer within the map. Thanks, --Gibmetal 77^talk 23:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Coordinate duplication

Please note This Bot request. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Alternative name field

Would anyone object to the addition of a "native name" field, so that, in articles like Frankopan Castle, the second version of the name can be in a separate table row, marked up in the appropriate language, rather than in the table header? See, for example, the native_name and native_name_lang fields in {{Infobox settlement}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have no problem with adding a separate field in principle, but I'm not quite sure where you wanted to position it. Are you thinking of a labeled row (i.e. one below the image fields), or just a secondary "header" row at the top (either with or without actual table-header markup). Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 12:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no preference, and am open to suggestions. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Merger

Any reason why Template:Infobox building couldn't be updated to include the parameters of this template? Its just confusing. A lot of castles use Template:Infobox Historic building. I would rather castles consistently used one infobox not many different ones. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion is taking place at WT:MILHIST#Infobox military structure. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_100#Infobox_military_structure did not lead to any steps to make a merge, so I request an admin to remove the merge template. Debresser (talk) 08:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Done Anomie⚔ 05:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The use of the |coordinates= parameter allows a custom {{coord}} template to be used, but won't produce a pushpin map. Use of separate |latitude= and |longitude= produces a pushpin map, but won't allow {{coord}} to be customised for e.g. the coordinates region. If |latitude= and |longitude= are used in conjunction with |coordinates= containing a {{coord}}, this puts the page into the error report Wikipedia:Database reports/Articles containing overlapping coordinates.

My proposal is to amend the existing {{#if:{{{coordinates|}}}|{{{coordinates}}}|{{coord|{{{latitude}}}|{{{longitude}}}|type:landmark|display=inline,title}}}} to become {{#if:{{{coordinates|}}}|{{{coordinates}}}|{{coord|{{{latitude}}}|{{{longitude}}}|type:landmark{{#if:{{{coord_region|}}}|_region:{{{coord_region}}}}}|display=inline,title}}}} which will add a parameter |coord_region=, which would be used in conjunction with |latitude= and |longitude=. The pushpin map will be generated, and the coordinates link will incorporate the region code. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

No objections after two months, so Done --Redrose64 (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Overlapping co-ordinates (and how to handle multiple sites of the same thing)

Hi. I'm working on Krona space object recognition station which has two sites. There seems to be no way in the current template to deal with that so I've added two boxes so I get two maps. I think ideally the template would have support for Template:Location map many, or allow latitude1, latitude2 etc. However with two boxes I get two overlapping co-ordinates in the top right of the article. Is there a way to stop the template automatically displaying co-ordinates at the top right? As this is all a bit hacky has anyone got any better ideas on how to handle this?

There are a few things (Okno, Dunay radar, others) which have two or three locations. I've used Template:Infobox radar for things that are a type of radar with many installations (eg Daryal radar which has the extra info in a table), but when there are only two installations they seem to be better suited to this template which gives location data. What do people think? Secretlondon (talk) 00:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Overlapping cordinates is certainly a problem: as I mentioned in the previous thread, there is a weekly report Wikipedia:Database reports/Articles containing overlapping coordinates, the contents of which I normally manage to fix inside 48 hours. In most cases this is because there is one set in the infobox, and another down near the bottom of the article in the form of a {{coord}} - it's normally a simple case of removing the latter. Articles with two infoboxes are more of a problem, especially where the two coords are different - which set should be removed, or at least, confined to the infobox and suppressed from the title?

Anyway, if Secretlondon's request is desirable (and I see no reason why not), I can add a parameter like |coord_display= which will allow |coord_display=inline to be used; if blank or omitted, it'll be the same as an explicit |coord_display=inline,title. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding military airfield information

It would be extremely beneficial to add the following parameters for military airfields and air force bases (Derived from infobox airport):

<!-- Airfield information -->
| IATA         =
| ICAO         =
| FAA          =
| metric-elev  =
| elevation-f  =
| elevation-m  =
| metric-rwy   =
| r1-number    =
| r1-length-f  =
| r1-length-m  =
| r1-surface   = <!-- up to r8 -->
| h1-number    =
| h1-length-f  =
| h1-length-m  =
| h1-surface   = <!-- up to h12 -->

What is the procedure to have them added? Bwmoll3 (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that further discussion regarding the name and scope of this template is taking place at WT:MILHIST#Expanding Infobox military structure template. Kirill ^[talk] 15:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

Template:Infobox military structure → Template:Infobox military installation – Currently, the infobox's name restricts it from showing that it encompasses larger installations, like forts (in the modern American sense) and other large things. "Structure" implies that it is a small building or an older fort. I am proposing this move because it would show that it encompasses larger structures, and will allow for the possible merger of other infoboxes in the future, as well as allow for greater flexibility down the road. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Sounds reasonable to me. Kirill ^[talk] 11:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• How about Template:Infobox military location or TemplateInfobox military site (similar naming to Template:Infobox historic site) to keep it more general. Installation implies some form of building or structure, but site is more inclusive. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The benefit of the second one is that it will allow for the merger of the military test site infobox. My only concern is that we have yet to decide whether we'll merge in the airport template or keep it separate. I'm for modifying that template, so "site" works for me. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

That'd be Template:Infobox military test site I'd merge/replace that one. If infobox weapon can cover from a penknife to a tank, then no reason for templates that have only a couple of specialist params can't be brought in as well. But it might be better then to work on the new all inclusive template first and then make the changeover post testing. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, that works. Do you suggest we start this in the sandbox? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

A sandbox, why not. I'd start with making a list of all the parameters of all the "donor" templates. Then whittle it down by identifying which params are similar. That leaves a list of parameters whose display code needs to be taken from the templates. Thereafter its more a case of layout then anything. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, here it is. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

{{Infobox Burg}} is already using {{Infobox Military Structure}} under the hood, so there's probably no need to merge it in directly; assuming that we maintain the parameter names going forward, it should just remap to the new, combined infobox.

Should we also merge in {{Infobox Military Memorial}}, or is the subject matter too different there? Kirill ^[talk] 03:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought about it, but then I decided against it because it really is outside the realm of an installation. The real issue here is whether we should incorporate the airport infobox, or modify that one to fit our needs. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I've pencilled in a few airfield parameters on the sandbox. And I've kept it to a few; one is ease of coding and maintenance - a single text box is easier than multiple parameters - and infoboxes are supposed to summarise key points - for the majority of no-longer-extant airfields exact runway alignments and lengths are not a key point (number of runways and whether grass or concrete probably is). But these are just my opinions. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the exact runway alignments and lengths should be kept in as they are very helpful for researching and gauging the size of the site and as some of the RAF stations have been turned into small landing grounds which do not warrant an individual article of their own it could help them as well. Gavbadger (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

If it's an airfield, we need to move the ICAO stuff to the top, so that it resembles the airport one. My best suggestion would be to make it so that no one knows that anything is going on here, so I've added some more parameters from the airport box. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and I have a concern about the difference between the airport template and this one. Essentially, we would be creating duplicate templates, so I was wondering if we should just move some discussion there. In terms of the runways being no longer used on old installations, I include them because they might be useful to someone, so it doesn't hurt to add and keep them. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep it here for the moment, why do we need both a runway list and single runways/helipad parameters such as | r1-number = and | r1-length-f = in the sandbox? Can we not just have runway list and helipad list both in unbulleted lists? Gavbadger (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Further question, can you add a website parameter into the sandbox please? Thanks Gavbadger (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

We could do that, but it would be duplicated down below. I don't know what others think, but I'm against putting a website link in the main infobox, although if we do incorporate airports, that will be the way to go. I'm just going off of the airport infobox, since it would make converting these things a lot easier in some ways (although I am also against merging these in that way, so I guess that is my opinion). Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Is the template nearly completed yet? Gavbadger (talk) 12:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Not yet! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, an idea why don't we put it to a poll and add another message on the MilHist talkpage to see if the editors want airport information within the "new" infobox or not then we can move on and work out how to actually make the template complete. What do you both think? Gavbadger (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Go for it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Works for me. Kirill ^[talk] 01:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Hi all, I'm BOLDly removing the RM tag here. It's clear from discussion here that there's no controversy, and it's just a matter of deciding on parameters and such. I don't want to close down the discussion, but I'd also like to help fight the substantial RM backlog. If you think this unreasonable, feel free to revert me and don't worry about contacting me about it or anything. --BDD (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

So, we have three options: "...site," "...location," or "installation." Let's vote! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Polls

There were two polls. The first one was whether to include airport parameters from Infobox:Airport within the new template and the second for a choice of new name.

You were allowed ONE VOTE for EACH POLL.

POLLS ARE NOW CLOSED

Inclusion of Airport Parameters Poll

The first one is whether to include airport parameters from Infobox:Airport since on a number of American Air Force Bases there are two infoboxes, the first being the current Infobox Military Structure and the second Infobox Airport which shows airport codes and runways however on a large number of Royal Air Force stations there is just the Airport Infobox. The inclusion of the airport parameters would allow the same type of infobox across all appropriate air forces bases/airfields to create commonality and would be easier for all editors to place the infobox for the article.

Yes

• Gavbadger (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
• GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC) Qualified with the proviso that it is only a subset of parameters needed to give basic info for defunct airfields.
• Peacemaker67 Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
• Bwmoll3 (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

No

• Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC) I really do not support placing this here because it will lead to confusion amongst people when a lot of bases already use the airport one and it works just fine. I think we just need to fix that one up a bit more, and everything should be fine.

Comments

• The parameters will be the basics such as runways and helipads in unbulleted lists and airport codes. Gavbadger (talk) 13:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Bwmoll3 (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Will you be able to notice a difference on something like the Loring Air Force Base page? I wrote that one so that the box would be as detailed as possible, and I don't want to risk having things lost if we do it differently. In my opinion, keeping as much information in those boxes is beneficial because they allow for people to quickly reference the information if they are doing research. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • It will be a bit longer and wider but since a large amount of parameters from the airport infobox are already in the military structure infobox nothing will be lost, if you have a look at my Royal Air Force sandbox (you will have to imagine the images as i was not allowed them in there) the top infobox is the original airport and the bottom is the "new" military structure-esque one which i crudely adapted from the parameters already there but needing moving around. Gavbadger (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I like everything in it, but the way that the runways are set up. My idea is that no one on the outside should know that we're radically changing everything (and besides, if one can tell the difference in the runway setup, then we're also creating two sets of this stuff). Maybe I'm a bit stubborn, but that's my view on it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The new name of the infobox poll

The second poll is about which name the infobox should be called.

THIS PARAGRAPH COPIED FROM Kevin Rutherford's comment at the top of the section with a minor change adding the words "to installation" in the third sentence.

Currently, the infobox's name restricts it from showing that it encompasses larger installations, like forts (in the modern American sense) and other large things. "Structure" implies that it is a small building or an older fort. I am proposing the move to installation because it would show that it encompasses larger structures, and will allow for the possible merger of other infoboxes in the future, as well as allow for greater flexibility down the road.

Template:Infobox military site

SUPPORT:

• GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC) , though it should be "Infobox military site" (caps use)
• Peacemaker67 agree with Graeme re: caps. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
• Bwmoll3 (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC) Prefer Template:Infobox military installation instead Bwmoll3 (talk) 10:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox military location

SUPPORT:

Template:Infobox military installation

SUPPORT:

• Gavbadger (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
• Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
• Bwmoll3 (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Changed capitals on proposal titles, sorry about that i have no idea why i put capitals in. Gavbadger (talk) 13:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Results

So, it looks like "Military installation" is going to be the name of this template. Does anyone object to having a more airport infobox-style list for runways, or is the other way likely to be the norm? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Me, look at the testcases page airfield area and say what exactly you do not like about it (apart from the "Other airfield facilities" bit i have no idea why that is in there (i assume testing). Gavbadger (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC) - Edited my post Gavbadger (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The modified infobox looks good but i cannot see the point of having the following parameters; "near to" seems redundant as location is already included and "Other airfield facilities" as runways and helipads are already included and nothing else should be included in the infobox also the addition of this "new" parameter has not been discussed and is NOT included in any documentation. What do you think? Gavbadger (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Apart from testing and experimentation, the "other" was to allow for important facilities that aren't runways or helipads but are important to the installation operation of aircraft. Eg a flying boat slipway (Newhaven Seaplane Base), or a airship shed (RNAS Pulham) to use just British examples, Vandenberg Air Force Base with its launch pads for a US one.

"Nearest_town" is a hangover from the test site infobox; it is easier at this point to incorporate as many fields as possible into the template and then the wholly deprecated template becomes a redirect to the new template converting all existing usages in one fell swoop. The use of the extraneous parameter can then be deprecated (eg instructions to use |location="near to xxxx" rather than |nearest town=xxxx") for new instances of the template, and then behind the scenes editing of the article can eliminate the duplication over time. That's my thinking. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I've coded for both, conveniently the three testcases Template:Infobox military installation/testcases have an example of one with both location and nearest_town, one with location only, and one with nearest_town only. And at the moment all work. (Not to say the work is done -at some point I hope to be able to stop the words "airfield information" appearing within the castle example.) GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure they ALL work? I have just changed the is_airfield? field within the RAF Brize Norton and nothing happens! Gavbadger (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you move the Identifiers to between native name and image please? Gavbadger (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that everything works, all the time, for every combination of input parameters. The more it is tested and the more times it seems to work, the more confidence we can have that it should work for all instances of its use. Getting an airfield to transition near seamlessly to the new template code without having to do a lot of parameter renaming in the article test is the objective, is it not?

The "is_airfield" switches on the Airfield Information sub head within the infobox, but so does putting text into any of the airfield parameters. (that is by design to use a popular phrase) It may turn out to be a superfluous switch (though not technically a switch) for infobox display and we might be able to remove it. Or it may have more use with metadata now that this wikidata thing is kicking off. I'd want to be sure it isn't needed/desired in combination with another parameter eg for the automatic choice of the appropiate symbol in the location map.

The various airfield identifiers could go to the top of the infobox, but they are a feature of the location being - in part or whole - an airfield. What happens for a large installation where an airfield (with Location identifier) is only a small part of the installation? CFB Suffield springs to mind - it has a modest gravel strip and the majority of the installation area is given over to "Mister Atkins". GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the code a bit and added some internal headings to break up the long column of parameters in the top half of the infobox; we may want to rearrange the order of some of the parameters to create more logical sections.

I've also added three new test cases, which are side-by-side comparisons of the structure, test site, and airport infoboxes using the same set of parameter definitions. Ideally, the two versions should be more-or-less identical; if they're not, that means that we'll need to actually modify the template invocations as part of switching over to using the consolidated template, which would be a lot of extra work. Kirill ^[talk] 03:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I think I've translated all of the structure and test site parameters, as well as most of the airport parameters. One thing that's obviously missing is the airport map—we need to add some code to ingest those map parameters directly. Kirill ^[talk] 04:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I guessing a straightforward cut and paste of the airport code for the map even after formatting to the same style might clash with other map/coords parameters resulting in a map and a half map in the infobox. How about adding a switch "Infobox_airport_transition?=" to define whether the "original" military structure map code is used or the infobox_airport code? It would be good to know if any military airfield for which we are considering using this template use the "stat" parameters - these are things such as aircraft movements, passengers numbers - because not incorporating them would simplify the job. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Gavbadger, the issue that I have with the runway setup is that it is different from the airport one, and would be better off incorporating the airport parameter for this information, since we are trying to incorporate uniformity, not a jumbled mess, in my opinion. We might even be able to use this for rocket pads, since right now it appears as though they might be numbered. I'm also going to add a statistics parameter right now, since you could make a fair argument that this information is important for modern airports. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, the way it looks now, the IATA and other codes are a complete mess when compared to the old way of doing things. I would be highly supportive of adding that parameter right above the runways, and adding the airport diagram right below it. It could either be that, or the image could be placed right there instead. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

A couple of things are troubling me:

1. What are the point of having "switches", since you need to add the parameters for the information to show up in the first place.
2. Can someone help fix the width of the runway information please? The percentages add up to 100 yet still stretch the box.
3. Do we have any smaller headers (and the same style) than the "Airfield information" size header?

Gavbadger (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

For the moment the switches aren't proper switches just part of If clauses - to that end any text - not just "yes" after ?= makes them logical 1. I included them from the start as I modelled the template form on infobox weapon which uses them in combination.

the Airport infobox is 4 columns wide, the Military installation one is only 2.

The Military infobox styles are defined here Template:WPMILHIST Infobox style and there isn't one smaller than subheader at the moment so it would be best to hardcode the font/size combo you think is needed.GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I have changed the r1 parameters around, do you know how to align because i want the number in the centre and the length/surface aligned on the right? Gavbadger (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, i have fixed the aligns and they currently work.Gavbadger (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Ktr101, because of how the base template is set out we can only have two columns across instead of four like the airport infobox so the runways cannot be exactly the same but i we tried to fix so it would be like it. Do you like the way the runways are set out? Gavbadger (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

GraemeLeggett, i have just been looking at "Template:Infobox military conflict" and noticed that the "combatant1" param can go up to combatant3 so you can just three columns length ways somehow. Gavbadger (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Had a quick look at the code for the conflict infobox. It sets the number of columns in the table from the number of combatants, so a three way fight is formed of three columns while a regular one-on-one is two columns. I'll warn anyone who wants to look ar it that it's written partly in wiki and partly in html.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea for this infobox? Gavbadger (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, if there's no other option (if recoding would end up causing more trouble than it's worth), then I suppose it will have to do. What about the ICAO issue, which could be better set up to look more like the other template, more so that it isn't one giant mess of letters. I like the feel that the airport template has on this, so it would be nice to have at least some separation and bolding of the information present, even if we can't duplicate it exactly. I added a footnotes section to the template, so that it would at least have a place to have data, since this information can be found online. I wouldn't object to adding a yearly statistics thing, since that might be something that would be needed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I think I have the location identifiers sorted (with the proviso of an extra comma playing off against having a list that looks like an encrypted message) GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

When the infobox is complete, would it be easier for transition if air forces base articles have airport or military structure infoboxes or doesn't it matter? Gavbadger (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC), changing terrible spelling. Gavbadger (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

In theory you'd just replace the first infobox template name - some airfields currently have both - with the new template name, pile the parameters from the existing infoboxes together, a quick run through for duplication and hit preview. And if looks good save. Altering any articles - in case that's what you're thinking - before then would be counter-productive; neither current infobox tells the full story. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, what i was going to do was to change the infobox to military structure then have a mini version for the ruwnays left in the airport infobox but i won't now. Gavbadger (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so I moved the second image up a bit so it won't be at the bottom of the template, and now sits at the bottom of the garrison section, as well as two other minor formatting tweaks. If someone could figure this out, is there a way so that the ICAO text could resemble the airport infobox text (i.e. en-dashes, boldness of text). Finally, is there any way that we can set up something where the box auto-collapses certain sections when a page is short? I can easily forsee a situation where there might be a few lines of text, and a giant infobox that drags the page on so much that it might create readability issues. I guess that's something to think about in the future, since our testcases example for the airport is quite long at this point. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The airport identifiers could be bold, but the pattern in most every infobox is usally data label in bold and data in normal (which would fit with the MoS on use of bold).

Autocollapse on infoboxes is probably a no-no - the MoS only really sanctions autocollapse in navboxes at the bottom of articles and in talkpages.

Long infoboxes are not unknown - I can think of a number of warships ones. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. If we decide to fix the ICAO stuff, it's not something that would require recoding. Would you be able to update the testcases so that it shows what the runway, helipads, and rocket pads will all look like when all is said and done? Other than that, everything looks good, and I would support taking it live now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Its not ready yet. The testcases compatability examples do not yet show agreement between the current airport and the new template. The key issue at the moment is getting both types of map input to work. The airport template uses one set of inputs and the the military structure one a different set. Even when that is satisfactory, several more test cases should be run to be sure. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Updates

So, does anyone have an idea on when the updated template might go live? Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Status

I would like to use the modified template on Wright Field. Can a status of the revised template be posted, please?

Thank you very much for doing this :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 04:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The elevation and coordinates sections still need work but I have no idea what's going on in that area I asked GraemeLeggett on 4th April 2013 but I have received no reply as of yet,

An example for Wright Field is here. Gavbadger (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for not responding to the question (other things intervened and I forgot). In simplest terms - it's a case of trying to meld two templates with different "design philosophies" to give a third which can replace either without next-to-no editing. Perhaps there is only so far we can go down that path and there will have to be some editing of the parameter contents so that the template code can be simplified a bit. This would make it easier to finish. Elevation is a case in point. There are twothree ways to do any parameter which has a primary and secondary unit value. One is to have a general purpose field that the editor types in as "6 ft (1.84 m)" or uses the template:convert to do the calculations. Second is to have two separate parameters, each containing one of the values but neither of the units and bring those four elements together in the display code. Third is to have two separate parameters, either of which has one of the values and the code uses the convert template to calculate the missing element and present them. The airport template uses number two - for whatever reason - and that makes it trickier than just say having two parameters for the same thing but with different names. Bringing the sandbox to fruition would be easier if the code was simpler, but it would have to be accepted that, in replacing the template in the article, the editor would have to go a little beyond just editing the name of the infobox used. I think coordinates is a more complex situation but is there any support for "simplifying" elevation? GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

For elevation a large amount of both current and former Royal Air Force stations which currently use the airport infobox, the elev-f parameter already uses the template:convert, so I would be for a elevation param with the convert template which the editor fills in. Gavbadger (talk) 12:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC) Edited again by Gavbadger (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Convert to Lua?

Just wanted to bring up the possibility of converting this template to Lua, especially if people want to use conditionals of some type. Sumana Harihareswara 23:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

done, converted to template:infobox, which uses LUA. Frietjes (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Problem with maps...

The latest changes seem to have disenabled the maps on a lot of fortification articles - there's a conversation here, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Problem with Infobox template..., about it. Is there any chance of switching back to the older version while the problems is fixed? Hchc2009 (talk) 08:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Plastikspork! Hchc2009 (talk) 08:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Doing so would break the template on the pages where the new parameters were added, but it appears as though you fixed it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Do not use

This template's documentation contains a hidden HTML comment:

This infobox is currently in development and as such a large amount of parameters do not work, do not copy this "updated" infobox until this messsage is removed!

The message is undated and there is no indication of why it is there, who put it there, or when it might no longer be required. Can anyone advise, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and fix this, as that was placed there over a year ago, when that was the case and we didn't want to risk anyone going ahead and placing it on the page. Then again, we didn't actually do anything until this year, so I guess it was moot. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Designation

We should add a |designation= parameter, for installations which have protected status, such as castles which are listed buildings or scheduled monuments in England. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

What's wrong with using the footnotes parameter? Gavbadger (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not a footnote; indeed it's often a very significant aspect of a building's existence. Using a named parameter allows meaningful data extraction and preserves data granularity. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Ktr101 can you assist? Gavbadger (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: You mean like this, or is it supposed to be fancier? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

@Ktr101: Yes, like that; thank you. See the |designations= parameter in {{Infobox building}} - it's probably best to use the same parameter name. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. I am hesitant to embed anything else into this template in terms of what is talked about on the buildings infobox, so let me know if you want me to, and I'll see what I can do. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

extend parameters

In translating castle articles from German Wikipedia, the parameter for a castle's area or dimensions is not currently replicated here. Could we please add it? --Bermicourt (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

|area = <!-- area of site m2, km2 square mile etc --> is already there. Gavbadger (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Coordinates not working for this template

For example in the article Belgrade Fortress you will find use of this infobox as follows:

{{Infobox military structure |name= Belgrade Fortress |location= [[Belgrade]]<br/>[[Serbia]] |coordinates= |image= |caption= Belgrade Fortress |map_type=Serbia |latitude= 44.8236 |longitude= 20.4503 |map_size= 200 |type= Fortress |built= 535 |builder= [[Justinian I]] |materials= Stone |height= |used= |condition= |ownership= |open_to_public= Yes }}

But the latitude and longitude are not being displayed on the page, so the template appears to be broken. WilliamKF (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It is because that article is using the old "Infobox military structure" and not "Infobox military installation", and since the coordinate style has been changed for the new one, the old coding doesn't work anymore. Gavbadger (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

But the coding matching what the documentation page shows. How should it be changed? Updating to the new template name, appears to make no difference. WilliamKF (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The original infobox code for the article was the old "Infobox military structure" I have now changed the code to the new infobox military installation. Gavbadger (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

{{Infobox military structure}} redirects to {{Infobox military installation}}, so that should make no difference. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Still not working.... Abductive (reasoning) 22:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Which article? Gavbadger (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Camp X; fixed. They were being overridden by a blank |coordinates= parameter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Past commanders?

Commanders should not be labeled as past commanders. This [1] edit changed the label "commanders" to "past commanders". This is wrong. --Pxos (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I added |past_commanders=, so it should be a matter of checking all the pages that are using |commanders= before removing that field (or merging it with the commander field). Frietjes (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

New Co-ords problem

The coordinates parameter also seem to be giving problems at Blandford Camp. Mighty Antar (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed the error this morning but have yet to find out what is actually causing it, I've contacted an editor on here who helped to create the new template for help this afternoon. Have you found the problem on any other articles or is it just the Blandford Camp article? Gavbadger (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I've just found another article with the same problem (RAF Middleton St George) however it has Infobox Airport which means it isn't just the military installation infobox having problems. Gavbadger (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

that was an unrelated problem (upstream), which should no longer be an issue. Frietjes (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Caption2

Caption2 does not show up. It does not even show up in the example infobox on the /doc page, where the page source specifies a caption for the ACC logo, but this isn't shown in the display version. 193.164.127.164 (talk) 10:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

fixed. Frietjes (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. 193.164.127.164 (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

proposed upgrade to use {{infobox}}

I created a version in sandbox2 which uses template:infobox and makes a few more improvements.

1. Removes the spurious colon from the Elevation label (this is the only label ending in a colon). see, for example, this testcase.
2. Decouples the width of the columns in the runway/helipad section from the labels, which allows for less line wrapping. see, for example, this testcase
3. fixes the bolding in the runway/helipad section. see, for example, this testcase
4. adds an optional |ensign= to separate the ensign from the name so the name can be used in the location map, without the ensign showing up there as well.

any comments or suggestions? Frietjes (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with points 1 & 2. However disagree with point 3 since it looks like the merges the runways header and length and surface together with them all being in bold. Disagree with point 4, since the problem is that people are not adding in "|pushpin_label =" when changing from infobox military structure to infobox military installation. Gavbadger (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Gavbadger, not sure I understand why you want H5 and H6 to be bold in RAF Brize Norton? or is it that you don't want the grey header to be bold? it would be easy to make the grey headers not bold, but making H5/H6 bold seems like an odd request. as far as the ensign is concerned, overloading the name parameter to add an image screws with the microformats, since you have lost data granularity. Frietjes (talk) 00:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't like how the grey headers "Runways" & "Helipads" are in bold and I support the No. 4 ensign, can you also update the documentation for the infobox as well please. Gavbadger (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Support - especially with regard to the importance of not polluting the name parameter with other material. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request 20/11/14

Can someone please centre all the infobox heading which run down the left hand side like how it used to be please? Gavbadger (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Request template disabled, until consensus is reached. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

It is a uncontroversial simple edit which when it was originally changed to left align no consensus was needed for that. Gavbadger (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Please read the documentation of {{Editprotected}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

when was it center aligned? using the default left alignment appears to be the standard. Frietjes (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

This edit removed the center align so it moved to the left [2] It is currently aligned in the centre in "Infobox military installation/sandbox" but the centre align was removed in "Infobox military installation/sandbox2". Gavbadger (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Gavbadger, I just put that version in sandbox2 (verify). when I look at the testcases, I don't see any difference in alignment in the labels between the current version and sandbox2. if you are seeing a difference, provide a screenshot or OS/browser details? Frietjes (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

"Infobox military installation" is still aligned to the left, but both "Infobox military installation/sandbox" and "Infobox military installation/sandbox2" are now center align for the sub titles such as "Owner", "Controlled by" and "Open to the public" and the rest down the left hand side. Gavbadger (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Gavbadger, which operating system and web browser? Frietjes (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

IE 11 and Windows 7. Gavbadger (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The |labelstyle= parameter is currently duplicated, so the first instance is being ignored. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Working on this. Testing sandbox. -DePiep (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done [3] -DePiep (talk) 22:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I am surprised to find and edit called "test" in a 5k template [4]. -DePiep (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request 20/11/15

Hi,
for all kinds of fences or barriers such as Hungarian border barrier, providing the area covered doesn't make any sense. The barrier's length would however be the most relevant feature of all to include. Even for areas of the Korean Demilitarized Zone type it would be nice, if both length and the area could be given. I therefore added a simple {{{length}}} parameter to the sandbox and ask you kindly to add it to the template.
Thanks, and regards, PanchoS (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds sensible, but please allow time for others to comment before using {{editprotected}}. If you have consensus (or no response) in a few days feel free to reactivate. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

PanchoS, done. Frietjes (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, awesome. PanchoS (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Simplification idea

So as it stands now, we have parameters set up so that the template has the ability to include both a coordinates template and the ability to add degrees, minutes, and seconds as well. Is there any reason that we need the latter option and cannot combine it into the former one? Also, I noticed on the 2015 San Bernardino shooting page that there is the ability to have a zoomable map of sorts, so would anyone else be supportive of adding that to the infobox in the near future, as well? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Kevin Rutherford, sure, you can replace |latitude= with |latd=. changing the documentation is easy. changing all the articles will require a bot. the zoomable map feature is available to any infobox which uses {{location map}}. you just add a '#' between the different maps. Frietjes (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Beyond your support, do you think this is something that would be necessary, as I figure doing that would make it a bit more user-friendly, as the coordinates bit can sometimes be a pain to learn. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

not necessary, but would simplify the template code if the alternative syntax were corrected and removed. Frietjes (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, as I will try to get around to a bot request in the next day or so. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Coordinates problem

There are a lot of articles with script errors. That seems to have been triggered by a recent edit to this template. Consider Marmion Tower for example. It uses Template:Infobox Military Structure which is a redirect to Template:Infobox military installation. The infobox in the article contains the following which also shows the result from Special:ExpandTemplates.

|coordinates = {{gbmapping|SE266787}}

{{gbmapping|SE266787}} → [[Ordnance Survey National Grid|grid reference]] <span style="white-space: nowrap" class="plainlinks nourlexpansion">[https://tools.wmflabs.org/os/coor_g/?pagename=Marmion_Tower&params=SE266787_region%3AGB_scale%3A25000 SE266787]</span>[[Category:Articles with OS grid coordinates]]

@Jonesey95: Any thoughts on what should be done? I have no idea what {{gbmapping}} is supposed to output but the above clearly won't work for coordinates. Marmion Tower has another coordinates problem, namely it has latitude and longitude values in the infobox, and {{coord}} in external links. A fair bit of work by someone who understands coordinates is needed—sorry that I won't be much use for that. Johnuniq (talk) 09:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

First thing first - undo the edit. Then someone else can sort the problem out at leisure. But that the template is a redirect is not the problem (I tested that). GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I have worked around the problem for now. All of those articles should no longer be showing script errors, and the maps should be visible. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks good. Johnuniq (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Feature request

I would like to request a feature where we can embed this template as a child into other templates. Currently we can embed things into this template with |module = but I do not see that it is possible the other way around. The case for embedding this is military installations that are decommissioned and turned into parks or museums, it would make sense to have this as a child template.--Cs california (talk) 08:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Cs california, I added the optional |embed=yes. please let me know if you use this somewhere in case we want to tweak the resulting output (i.e., adding an additional heading or divider something). Frietjes (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Frietjes thanks I will try it out--Cs california (talk) 06:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok just tested here: Fort Funston, Everything displays fine except for one field | ensign = There is also an issue distinguishing the box out as in Fort Cronkhite, maybe some kind of header indicating it is a military installation. Not sure what is the best way to feature this section in the infobox.--Cs california (talk) 07:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Cs california, I made some changes. we can add a default header, like "military installation" if you think it's useful. for now, it will add a thin divider in the case when the |name= and |ensign= are both empty. by the way your ping didn't work since you didn't ping and sign at the same time, but I was watching the page, so I saw your comments :) Frietjes (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Cool looks a lot better thanks -Cs california (talk) 08:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused about the change to the fate parameter

I suspect that documentation about the fate parameter (which seems to have been a change from the demolished parameter) is missing or out of step. Hopefully I have guessed its use correctly as evidenced by my edit to Koknese Castle. Also, the documentation of the used parameter is unclear, as it only makes sense to me if I use Template:Age rather than Template:End date for its value as given in the full parameter list (I also "fixed" this in my same edit). Can someone clear this up for me please, even though it's nothing major? My Gussie (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Deprecated syntax but two ensigns?

Zweibrücken Air Base (current) has deprecated syntax, using [[File:NAME.TYPE]] for the ensign parameter (which has two values and displays both pictures next to each other). Changing it to be just NAME.TYPE doesn't work—they don't both display right.

How can I get the syntax to use the current version while retaining the original appearance? Thanks! DemonDays64 (talk) 07:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

DemonDays64, |ensign2= should work now. Frietjes (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Frietjes: thanks for fixing that so fast :D DemonDays64 (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Elevation

The combination of existing |elevation-m, |elevation-f, and a new |elevation (without a defined unit) makes for a bit of trickery.

The format of the IF statement is If (condition) result if true, result if false.

So how about:

IF (elevation is present, elevation-f is present, elevation-m is present)

(then the following)

IF (elevation is present), elevation

(else) IF (elevation-m is present) ((convert|elevation-m|m|ft|abbr=on))

(else) ((convert|elevation-f|ft|m|abbr=on|disp=flip))

Provided the right number of curly brackets are there it should display in preferential order

elevatoin

elevation-m and conversion to ft

elevation-ft and conversion to m, but with metres first.

I hope. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

the coordinate question

Or "squaring the circle".... The inputs for map display in an airport infobox are

| latd = | latm = | lats = | latNS = | longd= | longm= | longs= | longEW= | coordinates_type = | coordinates_region = | pushpin_map = | pushpin_label = | pushpin_map_caption =

and those for the military installation infobox are

|map_type = |latitude = |longitude = |map_size = |map_alt = |map_caption = |type = |coordinates = |coord_region = |code =

The former requires entering the latitude and longitude as discrete elements, which is probably easier for some editors to avoid syntax errors. The latter takes them as straight numbers.

As a consequence, the code for the infobox airport has to stitch the individual parts back together again. And then feed them to the map drawing code.

{{Location map|{{{pushpin_map|}}} |label = {{#ifeq: {{lc: {{{pushpin_label_position|}}} }} | none | | {{#if:{{{pushpin_label|}}}|{{{pushpin_label}}}|{{{name}}}}} }} |alt = {{{pushpin_map_alt|}}} |lat = {{#if:{{{latm|}}}{{{latNS|}}}| |{{{latd|}}} }} |long = {{#if:{{{longm|}}}{{{longEW|}}}| |{{{longd|}}} }} |lat_deg={{#if:{{{latm|}}}{{{latNS|}}}|{{{latd|}}}| }} |lat_min={{#if:{{{latm|}}}{{{latNS|}}}|{{{latm|}}}| }} |lat_sec={{#if:{{{lats|}}}{{{latNS|}}}|{{{lats|}}}| }} |lat_dir={{#if:{{{latNS|}}}|{{{latNS|}}}| }} |lon_deg={{#if:{{{longm|}}}{{{longEW|}}}|{{{longd|}}}| }} |lon_min={{#if:{{{longm|}}}{{{longEW|}}}|{{{longm|}}}| }} |lon_sec={{#if:{{{longs|}}}{{{longEW|}}}|{{{longs|}}}| }} |lon_dir={{#if:{{{longEW|}}}|{{{longEW|}}}| }} |mark = {{#if: {{{pushpin_mark|}}} | {{{pushpin_mark}}} | Airplane silhouette.svg }} |marksize = {{#if: {{{pushpin_marksize|}}} | {{{pushpin_marksize}}} | 10 }} |float = center |caption = |border = none |position = {{{pushpin_label_position|}}} |width = {{#if:{{{pushpin_mapsize|}}}|{{{pushpin_mapsize|}}} | 220 }} |relief = {{{pushpin_relief|}}}

By comparison, the requisite code for the military infobox map is relatively clean

{{#if: {{{map_type|}}}| {{!}} colspan="2" {{WPMILHIST Infobox style|image_box}} {{!}} <center>{{Location map|{{{map_type}}}|lat={{{latitude}}}|long={{{longitude}}}|width={{{map_size|220}}}|float=center|border=none|relief={{{map_relief|}}}|mark=Red_pog.svg|alt={{{map_alt|}}}|caption={{{map_caption|Shown within {{{map_type}}}}}}}}</center>}}

IF, it is intended that the new replacement infobox should take either set of inputs, then somehow it either has to know which of the inputs is being taken or accept either and make the switch in the code. Not impossible but not easy either.

The alternative is that the editor who makes the replacement, has to convert the coords themselves. This offloads a complex programming issue onto that most remarkable of computational artifacts - the human brain. Possibilities of a cock-up but the effect would be limited to each article as it was edited rather than wiki-wide due to an oversight at the coding or testing stage.

Either way, the approach taken could use discussion. I also don't think I'm qualified (skills) or capable (personal circumstances) of delivering the code. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Current issues with sandbox

List of current issues with sandbox (update as applicable)

1. image2 appears as {{{image2}}} within the infobox if the parameter is not used in the infobox example code view, if the parameter is added to article's code and the value left blank, it is completely blank on the normal view mode (this is shown by a noticeable gap on the article. Edited again by Gavbadger (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

So, is this the only issue preventing us from publishing it? If so, I suppose we could get some outside coders to troubleshoot it for us. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know at the moment yes. Gavbadger (talk) 10:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Gavbadger (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

2. native_name does not show up. Gavbadger (talk) 11:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Gavbadger (talk) 12:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)