Template talk:Aircraft specs/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Discussion about template mergers, a bot and potentially new functionality to this template

There's a discussion concerning this template at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Template:Aircraft specs merger bot Of particular concern to this template is how to handle Payload and loaded weight information from {{Aircraft specifications}} which may involve adding new fields to this template and changing the conversion system to not perform automatic convertions for units where a value is manually given. --Trialpears (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Changes to conversion subpages to avoid unnecessary conversions

I've made changes to the conversion subpages Template:Aircraft specs/convert/sandbox, Template:Aircraft specs/eng/sandbox, Template:Aircraft specs/length/sandbox, Template:Aircraft specs/range/sandbox and Template:Aircraft specs/speed/sandbox which make use of extra unit parameters if supplied, instead of converting to them from another unit. This is primarily done to prevent extra unit conversions when converting instances of {{aircraft specifications}} to this template, which reduces the precision of our values. It will also be useful for overriding the conversion when it displays the wrong amount of significant figures. See also discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Template:Aircraft specs merger bot and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 20#Template:Aerospecs.

I've tested all functionality of these templates, both new and old, and have found no problems. The testcases work and the new functionality works correctly in test conversions of {{Aircraft specifications}}. The speed and range conversion templates seems to behave weirdly with the parenthesis not displaying in the same way as the other templates, so I have made the formatting consistent with the other templates. If their current formatting (as seen in the test cases) were intentional I will happily switch back to that. --Trialpears (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Not done for now: There are a number of "needs a number" showing up in the first few test cases in Template:Aircraft specs/sandbox. Are those intentional? Izno (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Izno Nope. That is from a copy paste error which is now fixed. I have done a bit more testing to be on the safe side and have not found any more issues. --Trialpears (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Done Izno (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Trialpears: Some articles are in Category:Convert errors. Sorry I don't have time at the moment to investigate the recent changes but I'm hoping someone will know how to handle the issue. No problem—I know it's hard to predict how templates are used and it doesn't matter if the articles are imperfect for a day or two while the common factors are found. I'll try to return in a few hours and see if some trick with convert might help. Johnuniq (talk) 05:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Johnuniq It's hopefully fixed in sandbox, but I can't test it more since schools starting. --Trialpears (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Please sync the {{Aircraft specs/length}} and {{Aircraft specs/eng}} sandboxes. It now handles edge cases not present in the testcases and should fix most the convert errors. --Trialpears (talk) 09:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Trialpears: Done, thanks working much better. Check Category:Convert errors for some remaining issues. I noted these:

• At Famà Kiss 209, ceiling m=3100 gives convert error Value "outside" must be a number.
• At MAI-223, ceiling m=5500 gives convert error Value "service" must be a number.
• I fixed some wikitext at Martin Jetpack and it is no longer showing an error. However, it shows "Performanceat 152 m" with no space before "at". How is that supposed to work?

Johnuniq (talk) 10:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Johnuniq All errors are now fixed, thanks to Nigel Ish for helping! The "Value X must be a number" errors were due to the words outside or service being in a number parameter. The Martin Jetpack error was from using cruise speed note without a cruise speed. --Trialpears (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

A few were due to fraction characters being used instead of markup.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 31 August 2019

Currently, in met all the speed parameters show 'km' in stead of 'km/h', which is not correct. I have tried in a sandbox edit but I am obviouslynot doing what is needed. Can someone help? Petebutt (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Petebutt Can you give an example article where this problem occur? --Trialpears (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Pilatus PC-9 is one - basically any article where |prime units?=met . It seems to be present in all the examples of the /speed sandbox, so I don't know if that broke the template.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.11--Petebutt (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Fixed in /speed sandbox now it just has to be synced by a template editor. Thanks for telling me! --Trialpears (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done Izno (talk) 01:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Range bug and engine ambiguity

While we're here I've found the worst bug yet: Hiding the range if using kts as the prime unit since it was looking nmi (I set up my testcases under the same incorrect assumption). Fix in sandbox. --Trialpears (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

There were also an problem with how en-kw and en-shp interact, now patched in sandbox. --Trialpears (talk) 22:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Izno (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Powerplant?

For Cierva C.6#Specifications (C.6) and all others, Powerplant seems strange. It would be difficult to fit a powerplant into any airplane. Template:Aircraft specs/doc#engines. Could it be possible to change the output of "|eng name="  – to engine.
Peter Horn User talk 02:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Oops, Powerplant redirects to propulsion and is not to be confused with power plant. Peter Horn User talk 02:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Add hint on formatting of |more entries?

I found that I had to bring my own formatting when adding a |more entry. If that's true, and accepted as good practice, then it might be worth mentioning in the docs. In other words, just saying

|more general=Cup holders: 2

does not work; you have to say something like

|more general=<br>
*'''Cup holders:''' 3<br>
*'''Fog lights:''' 2

to get it to render correctly. (It was the Ford Trimotor article for me, but I think it would apply in general.) Thanks! 73.3.56.178 (talk) 05:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Broken "Performance" sub-section @ Junkers Ju 390

This is how the "Performance" sub-section now appears at Junkers Ju 390 (for me anyway):

Performanceat [sic] 6,200 m (20,340 ft)at [sic] 2,500 m (8,200 ft)
Range: 8,000 km (4,970 mi, 4,320 nmi) Ju 390 V1 with 10,000 kg (22,046 lb) payload and 34,096 l (9,007 US gal; 7,500 imp gal) fuel at 330 km/h (210 mph; 180 kn) and 2,000 m (6,500 ft)
Combat range: 9,704 km (6,030 mi, 5,240 nmi) (reconnaissance mission)
Combat range (bomber mission): 9,254 km (5,750 mi; 4,997 nmi) with 1,930 kg (4,255 lb) bomb load

In addition, the following lines of actual template data are invisible in the article itself:
|max speed km/h=505
|max speed note=at {{cvt|20340|ft|order=flip}}
|cruise speed km/h=357
|cruise speed note=at {{cvt|8200|ft|order=flip}}

I haven't noticed this particular issue in any other articles. The ways of templates are often a mystery me, but I really have no idea why:

• the speed data is invisible, and;
• the altitude figures are appearing only in the heading.

I'm guessing that there is either a strange bug in the coding of the template itself and/or something about the way this data has been entered?
(Also posted at Talk:Junkers Ju 390.)

Grant | Talk 03:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Now fixed, thanks User:Nigel Ish.

Grant | Talk 02:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Formatting of power with and without reheat

The thrust and afterburner thrust don't format like previous templates. Rather than bulleted below the engine you get a (rambling) part sentence. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

some additions/tweaks I'd like to see

• add fuel capacity for l/gal/imp gal - currently these have to be calculated and formatted manually.
• add PS as an engine power - it isn't exactly 1 hp, but it is used in some sources, and it should be clear which one we are converting from.
• add oil capacity. Sometimes the limit on endurance is the oil rather than fuel, so it should be included.
• add wing chord to each wing section. This is often quoted in contemporary sources for early aircraft, and does have some use.
• add undercarriage track - when combined with length this gives an understanding of potential ground handling characteristics.
• add landing speed in addition to minimum control speed, as that is what most of the earlier references provide. - NiD.29 (talk) 06:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I can get behind oil capacity (following fuel capacity in the presentation?), PS as an option (but not on by default), landing speed, but undercarriage track is step too far IMO; we can't fit everything in and ground handling ought to be described in article text, as the designer may have mitigated or further comprised whatever track was used. And there's bound to be some aircraft out there with unusual undercarriage for which track cannot be given as a straightforward dimension - if anything I've learnt with aircraft is that there are a lot of edge cases.

I think fuel capacity may be better left as a free form field, fuel capacity in sopurces seems to often come with qualifiers or vagueness needing one to put eg "15 litres (3.3 imp gal) with a further 15 min reserve" or "250 US gal (950 L) with an optional 30 US gal (110 L) fitted", and there's a template that does conversions readily enough. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Only a tiny number of aircraft would ever need PS - and then only as a field to enter instead of using hp or kw, not as an additional number to display as it isn't a common unit in English. Sources from certain eras and countries only give power in PS which leaves us in the awkward position of having to convert (even if it is only 1-2 off), just to enter it into a field - or using a later, less accurate or complete source for that one number. It is more of a bookkeeping exercise, same as why we don't allow manual conversions elsewhere.

Speaking of which - is there a reason we can't we have wing loading and power loading calculated automatically from the appropriate fields? I find that it seems to be common to only find these numbers for the more obscure variants, and not the one needed for the section, so they usually end up being left empty.

Best place for oil capacity is right after fuel. Why not an extra field for the fuel like the notes field used in all of the performance parameters for the weird stuff? The weird cases shouldn't dominate the discussion when they can fit into a notes field, and it breaks the consistency, as different people can then enter the data in different ways. I don't see why this one field should be the exception to what works well for all the other fields where this is an issue. Break it out into |fuel capacity L= |fuel capacity impgal= |fuel capacity USgal= and |fuel capacity notes= where the last one will cover those 15 minute reserve tanks and any other oddball things that come up (such as external fuel).

Track isn't nearly as important with a 737 as it is with a Buhl. I have been doing a lot of 30s US aircraft recently and they all have the wheel track provided in the specifications and for the reason I suggested. We already have a bunch of optional fields so one more won't break the bank. - NiD.29 (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Prop blade number

Should prop blade number really be required to display any propeller information? I think it should be made optional. --Trialpears (talk) 12:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Probably shouldn't be required, but I don't see a problem because that is generally the only information about a propeller that is known. - ZLEA _T\^C 12:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

That's usually the case but I've seen a few cases where it has been an issue while converting Aircraft specification templates. For example there was some very early plane where the material and manufacturer of the propeller was constant but they tested several types of propellers and blade numbers and cases where the propeller information was fully filled out but nothing displayed since they didn't use that parameter. Since I don't see any disadvantages these tiny advantages justify this small change. --Trialpears (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I have no objections to the change. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Wing profile

I've been working on converting {{Aerospecs}} to {{Aircraft specs}} and most of the remaining cases (455 of them) are using a Wing profile parameter. I think this should be added here but want to make sure there is consensus before doing so. --Trialpears (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Trialpears The equivalent parameter in Template:Aircraft specs is "airfoil". - ZLEA _T\^C 23:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I feel a bit stupid now... --Trialpears (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't, it took me a while to figure it out myself. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Limit conversion decimal places

In the GAF Jindivik article the current converted metric dimensions are displaying up to five decimal places, this is false precision, it is trying to convert 1/8 inch steps which in itself is daft but if that's what the source says then it has to be.

I am not authorised to edit this template otherwise I would do it myself. I recommend a review of all the decimal place settings throughout the template for consistency and would further recommend limiting the number of decimal places to two for all parameters unless there is a good case to do otherwise. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree it looks daft, but I am not convinced that the measurements are correct anyhow. Other sources for example say Height is 8ft 6in when on a trolly, length 23ft 4in. Perhaps if we had more sensible imperial measurements it might help. MilborneOne (talk) 13:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

That's probably true, I looked back through the article for vandalism but they do appear to be genuine entered values. I was going to take the liberty of rounding them to the nearest inch but would have got slapped by somebody. All the same the template coding should be reviewed, we have enough problems with editors creating their own false precision using calculators. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The plot thickens, it appears that Australian aircraft use metric primary units (they do drive using kilometres, other wiki articles on Aus aircraft use metric first). I have the Jane's 82-83 directory which has metric units first for the Jindivik. I guess that someone entered converted imperial values which have then been converted back to the original metric with compounded errors. I will try to sort that particular article out. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

To be fair to the template it does say in the coding choose met or imp for US or British aircraft, choose met for all others (which would include Australia). It's converting the ceiling to 57,005 ft which implies that the original value was Imperial. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Fixed the over precise conversions by adding the source alternative figures manually, the Jindivik article is happy at least. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

One workaround for fractions of inches that avoids the really silly values is to enter the factions as fractions (i.e. |length in=1=1/8) this limits it to 3 decimal places - of course some sort of cutoff would be good.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I get the feeling that the specs sections are not being reviewed for oddities after conversion to this template, I understand better how it works now so should be able to correct those that I have a source for at least. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Just adjusted the length conversion at Grumman TBM Avenger, it was 12.19518 metres. Surely there is a problem in the template? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Same at Douglas A-20 Havoc, I've a feeling that there are an awful lot more like this. The template doesn't seem able to handle decimal fractions of inches sensibly, I've tried several ways in a sandbox. There's no guidance in the documentation (I searched for the word 'fraction'). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The conversion is using {{convert}}. I haven't examined Template:Aircraft specs/convert but convert gives the following results ({{cvt}} is convert with |abbr=on):

• {{cvt|40|ft|0.125|in}} → 40 ft 0.125 in (12.19518 m)
• {{cvt|40|ft|1/8|in}} → 40 ft 1⁄8 in (12.195 m)
• {{cvt|1/16|in|m|5}} → 1⁄16 in (0.00159 m)
• {{cvt|1/16|in|m|sigfig=3}} → 1⁄16 in (0.00159 m)

When convert is given a length of 40 feet and 1/8 inch, it calculates the output precision needed to show ±1⁄16 inch. If the inches is 0.125, the precision is ±0.0005 m with a bit extra that generally works out well, although not in this case. At any rate, please see this edit at Grumman TBF Avenger. That shows 12.195 m which is a technically correct precision but possibly more than wanted. To get 12.2 m, the template would need |sigfig=3 but that's tricky because it would always give 3 significant figures which might not be appropriate in some cases. Johnuniq (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm aware that the template is using a form of tl:convert, it needs editing and testing to arrive at an encyclopaedic function. The root of the problem is that it is converting fractions of an inch to metres (inches would normally be converted to their metric equivalent of centimetres, fractions of inches would normally be converted to millimetres) so 0.125 or 1/8 inch gives an output of 0.00318 metres (where 3.2 mm would be sensible). It is normal to convert feet and inches to just metres (with a decimal point) not metres and centimetres or metres and millimetres so some kind of rounding needs to be used, I would suggest again limiting the output to two decimal places (of a metre) which follows the practise of the aviation press (Jane's etc). If this can not be achieved then we will need to edit the specs sections manually by adding the other unit parameter(s) as we used to do.

I checked the function the other way around (met to imp) which works, it rounds a two decimal place metre input to feet and whole inches. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

we could do something like this where we have the option to specify the sigfig for any measurement, but use the default when not specified. we would just need to implement this sigfig in the subtemplates. Frietjes (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Please go ahead. We probably need a note on how to input imperial fractions on the doc page (1/8 or 0.125 or either?) once the changes are made. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 06:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I implemented something and started some documentation in this section. other tips, including fractions, may be useful. also, the various conversion subtemplates are fairly complicated and I tried to avoid adding the sigfig parameter to uncoverted units (i.e., the input values). I may have missed something, or added something where I should not have, so let me know if you see any funny behaviour. what I did should have zero impact if you don't use one of the various sigfig parameters. Frietjes (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I can see that you have put a lot of work in to this. Will the changes correct retrospectively? I'm looking at the length at Douglas A-20 Havoc which is currently 14.62723 metres, I have purged the cache. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Nimbus227, I fixed it for you per this section of the documentation. One idea would be to limit the maximum sigfigs to 4? Or maybe track pages with more than 4 sigfigs? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand how it is supposed to be used now (I was expecting the template to cope with it automatically). Can we track articles with more than 4 sigfigs? Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Problems with Mach number

|max speed mach= doesn't seem to work when |max speed note= is used.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

In addition, this could really do with the ability to add Mach numbers to cruise speed and never exceed speed as well (particularly cruise speed).Nigel Ish (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Electric aircraft mass conventions

Is there an established convention on dealing with masses for electric aircraft? IMO it should be: MTOW (or gross weight), comprising payload, fuel capacity gives battery details, then empty weight is MTOW - payload - battery. However, I've seen a few articles now which give empty weight including batteries. Is there an established convention, and if not, I propose the above. GEbb4 (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

We will need to go with what the sources use and useage may vary compared with liquid fuelled aircraft as there may be less potential to trade off fuel weight for payload/performance - the aircraft may always have a full et of batteries, which may not be removable.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

If engine type is not given, format is messed up by an unnecessary blank space.

I think I know a solution, but you don't want me to help. --84.189.92.195 (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I am confused as to what page would have an empty field there - if it is powered, at the very least it should say the type of engine. As for gliders, "none" could be used, or an  , or those lines removed entirely. Could you provide an example? I looked at the aircraft page in your edit history and it has only the normal gap between that section and the next. - NiD.29 (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Swept span is broken

The swept span displays as lower wingspan - this is not performing as required - see General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Can anyone fix this?Nigel Ish (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Nigel Ish I've fixed it on the sandbox, see testcase. Now we have to wait for a template editor to update the main template. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Added an edit request. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 August 2021

Put spaces around the × output from rot number consistent with {{aircraft specs/eng}}. 148.252.129.49 (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I can't get the parameters "sigfig" to work correctly

I am not able to get the "sigfig" parameters to work correctly, at least with certain spec parameters, e.g. "empty weight" and "max takeoff weight". I have created a small example here. The empty weight should have only one significant figure and the max takeoff weight should have 8 significant figures. But it looks like in both cases the converted values have 6 significant figures:

General characteristics

• Empty weight: 172,000 kg (379,195 lb)
• Max takeoff weight: 350,000 kg (771,618 lb)

Performance

Could somebody tell me what I did wrong? Spike (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to work with the weight fields. I'm not sure this is a new thing. It seems to work okay with dimensions and speeds at least.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Is there even supposed to be a sigfig option? I presumed the inbuilt use of convert template would deliver appropriate precision.GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Having read further up page and looked at one or two articles - eg Lancaster where the conversions are "Empty weight: 36,900 lb (16,738 kg)

Gross weight: 55,000 lb (24,948 kg) Max takeoff weight: 68,000 lb (30,844 kg)" - it looks like the weight conversions are screwed up. IMHO adding sig fig option because one or two articles had lengths "accurate" to a fraction of an inch causing problems rather than the obvious answer of rounding the input to nearest inch was a bad move and should be undone. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Use of bold in this template

The manual of style states not to use bold in situations like this. Is there a specific reason it's used? If not, I would suggest that it be removed. Any input is appreciated. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you be more specific as to what guideline this violates? From looking at it recently in regards to another template, it is not in violation. BilCat (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

BilCat has a point. As he notes, we just went through all this with another template. I see no "situations like this" mentioned in MOS:BOLD, and most particularly not in the MOS:NOBOLD blacklist. The only relevant MOS guideline I know of is WP:PSEUDOHEAD, where this kind of bolding is Acceptable (sic) and explicitly preferred over the description list markup (a semicolon prefix, as ; ) which we would otherwise have to fall back on. I'd respectfully advise that any serious suggestion for removal should be accompanied by a proposed replacement formatting with associated markup code known to meet accessibility guidelines, plus a rationale as to why it helps the visiting reader. But there are probably better things to be getting on with. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Steelpillow: The manual of style page doesn't state that it should (or could) be used in this situation; I'm not sure if it not explicitly being written that it shouldn't be used in this context means anything. Also, the pieces of text in question which are bold are not headings – they are part of bullet-pointed lists. The bullet points should be sufficient for this usage, without requiring bolding as well. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, bolding in this template helps the reader more easily distinguish the parameter from the data. I see no benefit to removing the bold markup, and even if it were against MOS:BOLD, I think this would be a prime candidate for WP:IAR. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

What is neither prescribed nor proscribed is optional. To address the original question, yes there is specific reason. What we have here is semantically a set of (two-part) description lists. We need the title and value on the same line. Since Wikipedia styles description lists on two lines, we have to either frig with the CSS or make do with vanilla unordered lists. And since HTML does not offer tab stops, we are forced to bold the title in order to distinguish it from the value. The unordered lists come loaded with bullets, which would need more CSS salad to hide; if that's what's bugging you, feel free, I agree it would be an improvement. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Steelpillow, User:ZLEA: In my opinion, 'distinguish[ing] it from the value' isn't necessary. This is often done in lists of this format on Wikipedia and I don't see why. Surely the title and the value can be distinguished from each other by reading the text?

You could consider making this template a table instead of a bulleted list. See the collapsed box for an example of how this would look. To save vertical space, perhaps each table can be positioned in the same place horizontally, each to the right of the last. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Example of this template using a table

General characteristics Crew Example Notes Capacity Example Notes Length Example Notes Span Example Notes Height Example Notes Wing area Example Notes Empty weight Example Notes Gross weight Example Notes Fuel capacity Example Notes Performance Maximum speed Example Notes Range Example Notes Endurance Example Notes Service ceiling Example Notes Data from example 1, example 2, example 3, and example 4 References References

Example of side-by-side tables

General characteristics Crew Example Notes Capacity Example Notes Length Example Notes Span Example Notes Height Example Notes Wing area Example Notes Empty weight Example Notes Gross weight Example Notes Fuel capacity Example Notes Performance Maximum speed Example Notes Range Example Notes Endurance Example Notes Service ceiling Example Notes Data from example 1, example 2, example 3, and example 4 References References

I'm confused as bolding is used in the same way on the main page, particularly the 'Other areas of Wikipedia' section, and infoboxes use a bolded parameter/fact label followed by entries in plain text for each line? Bolding parameter descriptions is used by the sources often used in these sections, Flight International, Janes and the Observer's Books series. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

This is getting interesting!

First, in response to Nimbus227; the list just cited on the main page bolds links, which also happen to be the bullet titles, unlike here where we do not have links. I do not have any recent Jane's/Observers books, but my old Jane's uses plain text throughout and my observers' use italic titles. What Jane's uses instead is a more or less columnar, i.e. tabular layout. But maybe the publishing world has changed since the 1980s, what do I know.

Next, the HTML output. It has long been a mantra that tables should not be used for page layout, as they supposedly bork assistive readers. But in truth this is a stone-age problem from the days when DreamWeaver and FrontPage were pants; for at least the last two decades, readers have coped admirably with tables, and it is in fact the nesting of things such as div tags and incorrectly formatted lists which bork them. That kind of bans MediaWiki's rendering of such things from consideration, ahem. So yes, I agree that tables are a good way to go.

More on bolding. If you have a tabular layout which cleanly separates title from data, there is no need to bold the title. Centre-aligning titles is naff, they need to be right-aligned. Clear display of data can vary, but defaulting to left-aligned is also a good choice there, at least to start with. But we don't want most of the borders and shading and stuff, so we should just default to a plain style and just add a box border round the whole thing for clarity.

I like the side-by-side arrangement which, I notice, defaults gracefully to one above the other for narrow/mobile screens. However the complications over individual inline cites are unnecessary, they can just be added to the individual data value in the usual way. So here is my shot at a way ahead. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Example of unadorned tables
Data from Source citation/s here General characteristics Crew Example value Capacity Example value Length Example value Span Example value Height Example value Wing area Example value Empty weight Example value Gross weight Example value Fuel capacity Example value Performance Maximum speed Example value Range Example value Endurance Example value Service ceiling Example value

Are you talking about changing the presentation of this template to a table layout, or replacing it with a table formatted in each article, like is already done with airliner articles? BilCat (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

So you are proposing deleting the template (and presumably all the the specs that are quoted using it) - why not delete all the articles as well?Nigel Ish (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

there isn't any likelihood of a change from current format getting traction is there, how about we close this down and move on? GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Steelpillow: Your example seems quite nice – although is there a problem with having the regular table appearance? Some of the text seems too close together without the delineation. Also, I'm not sure what's causing the "General characteristics" and "Performance" table headings of your example to be bolded – but I would suggest ensuring they aren't bold, and increasing the font size (I used 110% for my example). Also, perhaps it would be better for the "Data from" text to be below the tables. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 00:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Tables can a bit complicated for new users. Personally, I think the template as it is now is more straightforward and does not have as much potential to cause accessibility issues as a table. I also recommend against changing the template itself to a table format because it would greatly complicate things (I know because I just tried to do it). - ZLEA _T\^C 03:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I recommend against changing the current template also, and for keeping the bolding as-is. BilCat (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

User:ZLEA: While I agree that the template code to display the information in a table will be more complex than the current code, at the very least this only has to be done once. When the code is written and works, people placing the template in an article won't have to be doing any table-writing themselves. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 03:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Before going down this path, I suggest you 1) check if its doable - you are going to need someone to actually do the code before you can even test the idea 2) make sure you have put the idea before other interested parties (eg members of the Aviation Project, Milhist aviation etc) 3) checked with the Manual of Style people to see if the current version is an afront to the MoS and not just an undocumented 'exemption'. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Just to clear up the basics, the suggestion is to rework the template so that it creates tables instead of bulleted lists. As already pointed out, no change to the articles is being proposed.

@DesertPipeline: I cannot recall any significant publisher who uses cell borders for such tables. Although pretty background colours are sometimes used, that is purely for bling, they have no useful function and we fight an eternal battle against such bling artists; I would not want to encourage them. Also, why add unnecessary markup? The table headings in my example are bolded because they are formatted as table heading cells, using the ! (pling) wikitext markup instead of | (pipe). They could be formatted as table titles or even captions, if preferred, but they do need some flag for the accessibility tools to hook onto. Personally I would stick to the default font size for whatever element is chosen, however if others prefer a larger size that is fine. Per MOS:FONTSIZE the current use of <big>...</big> should in any case be changed to a percentage Template:Big is currently used to give a 120% enlargement. Spacing between elements can easily be adjusted using CSS, my example is just quick-and-dirty template output to demonstrate the principle. Whether the "Data from" cites are positioned above or below applies to whatever format we adopt, and is an independent issue.

But I agree with GraemeLeggett that we would need to prove the concept with a functional prototype template before the rest of this Project would (even should) be willing to take such a proposal seriously. Is the risk of their turning it down, or of ZLEA's problems being intractable, really worth the hassle?

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC) [corrected 10:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)]

Steelpillow makes some excellent points. Further, he's got me thinking about a related issue WP:AIR has looked at several times over the past 10 or 12 years, but never solved. Currently, we have a hodge-podge of various tables for the specs in many of our airliner and bizjet articles. If it's feasible to make a specs template that is based on Template:Aircraft specs, but can output to a table format, perhaps we can have it display specs for multiple variants of an aircraft. It would probably have to accommodate between 2 and 5 variants, which should be enough for most airliner articles. This template-table wouldn't replace Template talk:Aircraft specs altogether, but be used instead of it on articles that currently use tables for specs, such as airliners. BilCat (talk) 10:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Accepting a user-determined number of columns is possible and would be useful, but it requires even greater and more complex use of parser functions and similar. I'm a bit rusty on all that, let's put this one to bed first. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Steelpillow Using parser functions to hide cells when not in use does some weird things to the non-hidden cells. - ZLEA _T\^C 12:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. Fortunately, the current template uses these functions to add content, not hide it (setting the genhide and perfhide parameters simply avoids adding the pseudoheadings). I see no reason to discard that principle. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

It would be more effective for airliners to have one particular spec fleshed out with the standard template and a following table that compared the key differences between various models (as for example in the Avro Vulcan article). But that is also a topic that should be covered by the whole of the WP:Air project GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

(Putting my comment here as I'm making a general reply) The suggestion to discuss the bold issue on the MOS talk page is sensible. The best idea would be to get conclusive data on whether bolding in lists like this (and whatever other contexts) actually helps readers. Regarding everything else said, I think it's getting a bit too complex for me to participate in this particular discussion – specifically, parts about general statistics for aircraft in a table. I'm not familiar enough with the subject to provide useful input. I hope that others can continue this discussion (possibly somewhere other than this talk page) and determine whether it should be implemented. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not it's "useful to readers" is mostly subjective, and will really come down to a "I don't like it " vote. To me, it is useful as it helps the reader's eyes distinguish between the labels and the specs themselves. The main issue to discuss at MOS about bolding in the specs is whether or not it causes accessibility issues. That's always been the main issue with bolding in psuedo-headings, not "usefulness". BilCat (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Clearly bold helps the user read the output in the articles, but I am confused by the discussion as far as I know this template doesnt use tables. As far as I can see the "bold" in the titles has nothing to do with tables so are we just trying to complicate things, did the OP think that the "Template parameters" table was related to the output, as far as I know that is just information for this page. Alternate I could be just thick and missing the point. MilborneOne (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The suggestion is that if the template were to be changed to use tables, then the numbers could all be aligned in a column and it would no longer be necessary to bold the item names. See my "Example of unadorned tables" drop-down for a rough example of what I mean. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Table format

I would like to point out that the problem with my table template is known, but I have no idea how to fix it. Here is how it would transclude with all parameters filled (note that I did not add all the parameters from the original template, and I left out units and conversions in these examples):

Transclusion with all parameters filled

{{Aircraft specs |prime units? = met |genhide = no |crew = yes |capacity = 3.14159265359 |length = long |span = 0 |upper span = +0 |mid span = ±0 |lower span = -0 |swept = 42 |dia = 2r |width = wide |height = high }} Transcludes as: {| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center" !colspan="2"| General characteristics |- ! Crew | yes |- ! Capacity | 3.14159265359 |- ! Length | long |- ! Wingspan | 0 |- ! Upper wingspan | +0 |- ! Mid wingspan | ±0 |- ! Lower wingspan | -0 |- ! Swept wingspan | 42 |- ! Diameter | 2r |- ! Width | wide |- ! Height | high |} Resulting in: General characteristics Crew yes Capacity 3.14159265359 Length long Wingspan 0 Upper wingspan +0 Mid wingspan ±0 Lower wingspan -0 Swept wingspan 42 Diameter 2r Width wide Height high

Since the template is designed to be universal for all aircraft, no aircraft will use all parameters. Unused parameters clutter up the template, so it is necessary to hide them with parser functions. However, parser functions seem to act like invisible characters (which I will call "phantom parser functions") when they are told to display nothing, meaning that the residual line breaks are not ignored when rendering the page:

Transclusion with some parameters blank

{{Aircraft specs |prime units? = met |genhide = no |crew = yes |capacity = 3.14159265359 |length = long |span = 0 |upper span = |mid span = |lower span = |swept = 42 |dia = |width = |height = high }} Transcludes as: {| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center" !colspan="2"| General characteristics |- ! Crew | yes |- ! Capacity | 3.14159265359 |- ! Length | long |- ! Wingspan | 0 (phantom parser function) (phantom parser function) (phantom parser function) |- ! Swept wingspan | 42 (phantom parser function) (phantom parser function) |- ! Height | high |} Resulting in: General characteristics Crew yes Capacity 3.14159265359 Length long Wingspan 0 Swept wingspan 42 Height high

If we can get around this problem, then creating a table format specs template should be easy. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

This is a well-known "feature" of template coding. Unlike normal wikitext, the template parser can be very sensitive to line breaks. So you have to write your code more in the spirit of:

|-
! Wingspan
| 0(phantom parser function)(phantom parser function)(phantom parser function)
|-
! Swept wingspan
| 42(phantom parser function)(phantom parser function)
|-

It makes understanding and debugging diabolical, but nobody has been able to make the parser any more user-friendly.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

It took 11 years to get this template to the current format, and it started as a derivative of another one. 'Easy' (and 'quick') are relative terms.GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Steelpillow I tried that, but the problem is that the code would actually transclude as:

|-
! Wingspan
| 0(phantom parser function)(phantom parser function)(phantom parser function) |-
! Swept wingspan
| 42(phantom parser function)(phantom parser function) |-

You cannot have a "|-" on the same line as a cell. - ZLEA _T\^C 11:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Pretty sure I used to be able to resolve that, possibly by having a second template which produced the code for a single row and then invoking it repeatedly from the main template. Nowadays we also have modules, which run arbitrary Lua code. So it must be technically feasible, just a right pain in the proverbial. See also this discussion about another of our project's templates. If I get the time, I'll experiment. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Update: I am making good progress in my sandbox. For my current state of rendering and other information, see my aircraft user page. Salient points: I have needed three different ways to render table code, depending on where it sits in the pile of spaghetti. There is a second template, specially for the engine data, invoked only by the main template and hidden at Template:Aircraft specs/eng; I will be getting into that next. No showstoppers so far. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposed format

That went easier than I expected. Here is an example in my new table format. It may be compared to the current live version here. What do folks think? If it seems to be on the right lines, I'll move it to the proper sandbox so it can be properly tested — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Specifications (fake pseudoheading)

References

I thought the whole point was not to have any bold headings. That aside the readability is poorer compared to the current. With bold terms you could quickly scan down to find the ones of interest and then read across. There is little differentiating between the element name and the value. Am intrigued if template can handle the indenting that will be be needed for listing armament loadouts under hardpoints code. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

PS - the weight conversions are still not working properly due to inclusion of the sigfig option - eg the (approximate) 5,300 lb rendering as (2,404 kg). Suggest you rip that out and toss it in bin. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. This version can easily be adapted to suit whatever bolding is required, while maintaining semantics for assistive readers. That is to say, the visual styling can be changed, the semantics embodied in the code should not be. The parameter values are now all aligned, which makes it easier to read when there is no bolding. Neither of these features is possible with the current version. What I show here is just one example for the sake of discussion; for now it is simply the default for the semantic. I was not aware of the indenting, I'll try to take a look at that once the principle is settled. Weight conversions are a separate issue, best treated in a separate discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@GraemeLeggett: The Template:Aircraft specs/testcases do not appear to exercise the bit of the template that indents the armament details. Can you (or anyone) point me to an article or two which do show the indenting? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

try Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II#Specifications_(A-10C) and Lockheed_P-38_Lightning#Specifications_(P-38L) for pushing the layout of armament section. Looks like BAC_TSR-2#Specifications would be one for handling long text in the armaments section. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:26, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. So, there are two kinds of nested list. One is templated for the "hardpoints" sub-parameters. That can be fixed, with either some CSS or a nested table, depending on how we feel about the semantics. The other kind is user wikitext entered in the article itself. Some entries contain hard-coded nests of bullets which interact with the templated bullet lists. There is no easy fix for this. The only workable approach I can think of is to add a new template parameter which, when present in a new list, would treat it differently from the legacy solution. Eventually the legacy code can be cleaned out of the articles (a bot would be a good way to go) and the parameter deprecated. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

But what I just described is a major programme of work and not worth taking further unless there is a clear project consensus for moving to this table-based format. I do not see that consensus emerging any time before a certain hot place freezes over. So as far as my proposal is concerned, it is game over. Thanks to all who contributed, if nothing else we have learned something which may help others down the line. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I do like the way your boxed specs look and appreciate your efforts, but unless there is a great advantage, I think we should pursue keeping the current formatting, bolding and all, just because it is going to be a lot easier for editors to work on. - Ahunt (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd just reiterate, in the main it makes NO DIFFERENCE to the article editor, it is all done with template magic. The only exception would be a transition of user-coded indented bullets to the new mode, and a bot or two should be able to do that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see, thanks for the clarification! - Ahunt (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

On the subject of user created bulleted lists within the templated form. It's an example that whatever plan is formulated for doing something just with one item per parameter, someone will find a need to put further indentation, or a bulleted list (plainlist), or some other manual formatting within a parameter and they will find a way of doing it. There are 12,000 articles using this template.

PS: I'm still opposed to an unbolded format, and the box around the spec.

PPS: it would need to have each element in table with top align on for when the varying text wraps onto new line. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

All that would be NO PROBLEM, once agreed. It's trivial to adjust the styling to meet consensus, it really is. The only real issue is cleaning up legacy user-entered bullet lists, as many would need the number of bullet stars adjusting; a bot should be able to do that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I also prefer the current format, and don't see any need to change it. However, I'd support a trial on several high-profile articles to see if we get any reader feedback, positive or negative. If the readers overwhelmingly love it, or if there's little negative feedback, then I'd support a full rollout. BilCat (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

One other question: How is this going to look on Mobile format? I don't use it, so I have no idea. BilCat (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Revised proposal

I have incorporated the easy bits from the above comments, but there remain issues with them:

Styling is reverted to better match the current. The problem is that the section pseudoheadings are indistinguishable from the real level 3 headings, and I find that unacceptable. A halfway house is to make them the same size as the item headers, but that also looks horrible. The lack of a border further compounds the mess; it would at least box the thing off from the real article subheadings. Getting rid of the bolded first column solved all that, and is more in line with reputable publishing practice.

Indented and multi-line hardpoint parameters are provisionally addressed. I can adjust the indent as required. User-entered lists may still show various quirks, for this and the avionics, but creating a clean-up bot is beyond my comfort zone. But is it worth pursuing that cleanup bot?

For the mobile view, the standard skin has a menu along the very bottom of the page, with a "Mobile view" option.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Specifications (fake pseudoheading)

References

On mobile view due to lack of the bullets, everything is hard up against the left hand edge of the screen. Could use a bit of spacing to move the individual items a bit to the right under each of the General, Performance, Armament headings. And I would say the same in the desktop view too. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Does that differ from the main text? It is a common "feature" of inept mobile stylesheets and I would not want to make an exception just for this list. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I am wondering if we can add a field for a drawing at this time - as it stands now, with little overview, the drawings are displayed at random sizes, often with excess wholly unnecessary coding and many times with sizes explicitly set when they should not be.

Adding the image to the table can help ensure that it is displayed consistently while reducing coding and improving accessibility. - NiD.29 (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I do like the idea. But, like the exact styling and the sigfigs bug, I think it best addressed in a separate thread. The more changes we include in any given proposal, the harder it becomes to obtain consensus for change. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 December 2021

Greetings and felicitations. In "with a capacity of {{{hardpoint capacity}}}," please add a space at the end, after the comma. Reason: Currently Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II#Specifications (A-10C) includes "with a capacity of 16,000 lb (7,260 kg),with provisions to carry combinations of: " [sic]. Adding a space after the comma (by whatever means are reasonable) will alleviate this problem. —DocWatson42 (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC) DocWatson42 (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Done in the sandbox and tested. Now we wait for a template editor to come along. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 20:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@ZLEA and Paine Ellsworth: Thank you both. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 03:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

It's my pleasure! Paine  05:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Missing fields

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following example fails to show up.

{{Aircraft specs
|max takeoff weight kg=15
|max speed kmh=150
|endurance=16 hours
|combat range km=140
|ferry range km=600
|ceiling m=5000
|eng1 type=1 stroke [[piston engine]]
|eng1 number=1
|eng1 hp=1
|eng1 name=SAITO FA-62B, JAPAN
|eng1 note=(fuel - gasoline A-95)
|more general=
* '''Payload:''' {{convert|6|kg|lbs|abbr=on}}
* '''Launch method''': a folding catapult platform
* '''Landing method''': parachute recovery
* '''Max. wind speed at the start''': 10 m/s
* '''Operational temperature range''': −30 to +40 °C
}}

General characteristics

• Payload: 6 kg (13 lb)
• Launch method: a folding catapult platform
• Landing method: parachute recovery
• Max. wind speed at the start: 10 m/s
• Operational temperature range: −30 to +40 °C

Performance

• Endurance: 16 hours AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 13:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Alexander_Davronov You need to set the "prime units?" parameter in order for most specifications to show. The following example should work:

{{Aircraft specs
|prime units?=met
|max takeoff weight kg=15
|max speed kmh=150
|endurance=16 hours
|combat range km=140
|ferry range km=600
|ceiling m=5000
|eng1 type=1 stroke [[piston engine]]
|eng1 number=1
|eng1 hp=1
|eng1 name=SAITO FA-62B, JAPAN
|eng1 note=(fuel - gasoline A-95)
|more general=
* '''Payload:''' {{convert|6|kg|lbs|abbr=on}}
* '''Launch method''': a folding catapult platform
* '''Landing method''': parachute recovery
* '''Max. wind speed at the start''': 10 m/s
* '''Operational temperature range''': −30 to +40 °C
}}

General characteristics

• Max takeoff weight: 15 kg (33 lb)
• Payload: 6 kg (13 lb)
• Launch method: a folding catapult platform
• Landing method: parachute recovery
• Max. wind speed at the start: 10 m/s
• Operational temperature range: −30 to +40 °C
• Powerplant: 1 × SAITO FA-62B, JAPAN 1 stroke piston engine, 0.75 kW (1 hp) (fuel - gasoline A-95)

Performance

• Maximum speed: 150 km/h (93 mph, 81 kn)
• Combat range: 140 km (87 mi, 76 nmi)
• Ferry range: 600 km (370 mi, 320 nmi)
• Endurance: 16 hours
• Service ceiling: 5,000 m (16,000 ft)

On a side note, you should also use the "ref" parameter to show where you got the information from.

Thanks. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ambiguous (and unnecessary?) "gross weight" template tag

The current standard template for aircraft specifications includes a parameter labelled "gross weight", as well as the parameters "empty weight" and "max takeoff weight".

The definitions offered for "gross weight" and "max takeoff weight" are confusingly contradictory, namely:

"gross weight: the fully-loaded weight of the aircraft. In most cases, this will be the Maximum Take Off Weight"

and

"max takeoff weight: the max takeoff weight of the aircraft, when different from the above gross weight"

To add to the confusion "Aircraft gross weight" has its own Wikipedia page with another contradictory definition:

"gross weight (also known as the all-up weight and abbreviated AUW) is the total aircraft weight at any moment during the flight or ground operation"

In my more than 40 years in the industry, I have never encountered "gross weight" being used as anything other than a synonym for MTOW.

Wikipedia mixes the two terms indiscriminately, with some types having a "gross weight" in the specification block and others having a "max takeoff weight". A handful of types have both, with the annotation "landing" added to "gross weight" as a workaround for the fact that the current Wikipedia template, oddly, has no "max landing weight" parameter.

Type Certificates for civil aircraft invariably specify either "Max takeoff weight" (e.g. FAA) or "Max takeoff mass" (EASA) and do not contain any references to "gross weight".

My proposal is simple: If MLW is considered a desirable component of a Wikipedia aircraft specification, add "max landing weight" to the template with a rule that this is to be used where a MLW is (optionally) included in the specification.

Comments welcomed. DaveReidUK (talk) 09:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Few aircraft types have a separate maximum landing weight to even find a source for (since the vast majority of aircraft predate such things), and it would add pointless additional confusion to our non-specialist readers when used, and couldn't easily be compared to the vastly more common maximum weight - but would invite such comparisons. The indiscriminate use of multiple terms is the result of such use by the industry, especially when French or German aircraft are considered. Almost ALL French WW2 and pre-WW2 aircraft had the maximum weight painted on the rudder and there are a LOT more of them than there are modern types using more modern expressions to mean almost the same thing.

What most types have is an empty weight and some form of a maximum weight, and yes, gross weight is usually a synonym for all up weight, especially for WW2 or pre-WW2 aircraft. The template already offers the means to add fields on an ad-hoc basis, and for the rare type where this is a concern, it can be added manually, and doesn't need yet another field making the template even larger. If the maximum weight exceeds the maximum landing weight, that should be added in the notes field. - NiD.29 (talk) 11:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

As far as MTOW and the like are concerned, the big difficulty Wikipedia faces is the need to reliable sourcing of everything. Real life is messy, for example a few planes take off with fuel tanks half empty and top up in flight, so max gross wt is higher than MTOW. We can only cite the sources we stumble across, so there is always scope for improvement if anyone can set out and justify a particular proposal. But I am puzzled by your post. You expend nine paragraphs expounding the issues over MTOW etc, then change subject entirely and offer a one-liner proposal on how to treat MLW. However, in that there is nothing to suggest, either way, whether or not MLW is "considered a desirable component of a Wikipedia aircraft specification". One might assume that at present it is not considered such, otherwise it would be templated too. It is unclear to me where you are going with all this. It would be clearer if you confined your discussion to one proposed change per discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Take off distance, landing distance and distance to clear 15m/50ft

Why are there no parameters for Take off distance, landing distance and distance to clear 15m/50ft?

For aircraft operating out of strips these are some of the most important parameters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkingscott (talk • contribs) 01:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia and not Janes All The World's Aircraft, so we limit specs to a few keys numbers. If we add take-off and landing distances, why not control surface areas or tire pressures? - Ahunt (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Service ceiling with link

Some confusion has appeared on this page: Talk:Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor#Max altitude 65,000 feet

It would be helpful to include a link to Ceiling (aeronautics) for the service ceiling parameter just like we do for "thrust to weight". {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Horsepower

Hello airplane folks. I mostly write about cars but not exclusively. One issue I have noticed is that all (as far as I can tell) non-English speaking countries use metric horsepower, which is the equivalent of 735 watts rather than the 746 watt of an imperial or customary horsepower. This goes for Germany, France, Japan, and everyone else that I have been able to determine. In some articles I see that this is indeed taken into account, at Daimler-Benz DB 601, for instance. Is there some way that the Aircraft specs template can be made to somehow incorporate or reference the different types of horsepower?

One issue is that most English-language sources tend to use the German abbreviation for metric horsepower (PS), as that is used in German, but also in Japan and South Korea. It feels off to use PS when describing a Dewoitine or a Fiat, so another option is to use hp-metric in conversion templates, although that outputs to "hp" which can cause confusion (see example #4 in the table below). Some write "hp (m)" but there is no universally accepted standard. Anyhow, I hope someone has some thoughts on this. Here is a table of options for when using conversion templates:

Template	Result
{{cvt|1075|hp-metric|kW|0}}	1,075 hp (791 kW)
{{cvt|1075|PS|kW PS hp|0|order=out}}	791 kW (1,075 PS; 1,060 hp)
{{convert|1075|PS|kW|0|abbr=on}}	1,075 PS (791 kW)
{{cvt|791|kW|hp-metric hp|0}}	791 kW (1,075 hp; 1,061 hp)
{{cvt|791|kW|hp-metric bhp|0}}	791 kW (1,075 hp; 1,061 bhp)
{{cvt|1075|PS|kW|0|order=flip}}	791 kW (1,075 PS)
{{cvt|1060|hp|kW|0}}	1,060 hp (790 kW)
{{cvt|1060|hp|kW hp-metric bhp|0|order=out}}	790 kW (1,075 hp; 1,060 bhp)

 Mr.choppers | ✎  20:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I am a bit concerned that the article on horsepower and Template:convert disagree. The article treats PS and hp-metric the same thing defined in DIN 66036, while the template offers them as different units. The article asserts that the French CV is the same again, but offers no source. But back in say 1945, were the French and German units really identically defined? The article generally lacks adequate citation. So really, I'd suggest that the Wikipedia unit gurus get to grips with the subject and form a detailed consensus, before we aerophiles can know what we should be implementing. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Steelpillow: The definition of 1 metric hp = 735.5 watt is the norm outside of English-speaking countries and was, as far as I know, chosen in France in the late 1800s as a metric definition, very close to Watt's original calculation. The metric hp is still called cheval-vapeur in France, which indicates its origins in the steam era. It is defined as the power needed to lift 75kg one meter in one second. The only change to this occurred in 1901, when the definition of standard gravity was adjusted at the 3rd General Conference on Weights and Measures.

The Japanese still refer to the two kinds of horsepower as French and British respectively (but then they use the German abbreviation "PS" just to keep things interesting). As for the conversion terminology, the problem is that there is no universally accepted standard for abbreviating metric hp, which makes things very confusing. If I had a good solution, I would have told the template boffins what to do long ago.  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

So there you have it. The horsepower article needs to clarify all that, and back it up with citations (WP:CITE) to reliable sources (WP:RS) so that it can be verified (WP:VERIFY). Once that is done, then a discussion may be started at Template talk:Convert as to whether displaying both hp (Imperial) and hp-metric with the same "hp" abbreviation is unhelpfully ambiguous and should be changed. Since there is no standard abbreviation for metric hp, one option there would be "hp (metric)", but then folks might want to qualify the other as "hp (Imperial)" as well; I would never second-guess any time-sliced "consensus" our herd of cats might thrash out over today's bowl of milk. At any rate, I'd prefer to see all this settled before we go round changing our derivative templates and guidelines here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)