This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Alaska This template is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Alaska on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AlaskaWikipedia:WikiProject AlaskaTemplate:WikiProject AlaskaAlaska articles Aviation: Airlines This template is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles This template is supported by the airline project.

I fear this navbox is far more elaborate than outlined at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. It seems this template is more about navigating within the Alaska Airline article, than between related articles. I have several concerns:

• The template uses a huge amount of space, while providing very little information
• The complexity of the template makes it very difficult to find relevant information
• Links are repeated
• It is not normal to link every word in the navbox, and there are some horrendous examples here, such as "pre", "post" (a disambiguate page), "flotilla" (that talks about watercraft), "location" etc.
• I don't know how many links there are to "cheatline", but there should be exactly zero.
• The infobox is misleading (although not directly lying) since it doesn't mention accidents, and makes a claim about there being none, when there have been many accidents and there are even articles on two of them.
• The use of tiny (virtually unseeable) pictures of every special livery is not suitable for a navbox.
• To include an article in a navbox, the topic of the navbox should be a defining aspect of the article. For instance, Alaska Airlines is part of "airlines of the United States", because that is a defining aspect of Alaska Airlines. However, it is not a defining aspect of a particular aircraft that is has been or is used by Alaska Airlines or Horizon Air. Imagine if a navbox for every 737-operator was stuck on the B737 article.
• The use of IATA codes for airlines and airports is very alienating for people who are not aviation geeks. After all, Wikipedia is written in eye of the person with little knowledge on the subject, and they may not even understand that the two- and three-letter codes are for airlines, and I think no-one knows the IATA codes for all of the airlines and airports in question.
• As far as I can count, there are only the following useful and relevant links in the navbox: Alaska Air Group, Alaska Airline, Horizon Air, Alaska Coastal Airlines, Barnhill & McGee Airways, McGee Airways, Star Air Service, Jet America Airlines, Air Oregon, Transwestern Airlines, Alaska Airline destinations and Horizon Air destinations. Two important articles are left out: Alaska Airlines Flight 261 and Alaska Airlines Flight 1866. That would leave four groups: current companies (3), heritage companies (7), destinations (2) and accidents and incidents (2). Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles relating to flight 536 if anyone wants to create an article:

• http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-12-29-aircraft-blogger_x.htm
• http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002707586_plane28m.html
• http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002783168_alaska04.html
• http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Travel/story?id=1448260

Smallman12q (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flight 536 incident did occur and I discovered it after my 10-24 edit was done but if you go here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alaska_Airlines_Flight_536&action=edit&redlink=1

You'll find out the wikipedia article on this incident was deleted because the incident was considered non notable. The article doesn't exist, the previous version of it was not deemed worthy of an article, therefore the template shouldn't have an entry.- William 16:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]