Template talk:Infobox aircraft/Archive 1

Archive 1

Parameters

I looked at a few aircraft suggested by Reflex Reaction (talk · contribs) and came up with this list of parameters. Let me know if I missed anything, or if anything is redundant (or rare to have a reliable value for).

• crew
• capacity (passengers)
• length
• wingspan
• height
• tail height
• wing area
• empty (weight)
• loaded (weight)
• maximum gross takeoff (weight)
• powerplant (engine?)
• dry thrust
• thrust with afterburner

• maximum speed
• cruise speed
• range
• service ceiling
• rate of climb
• wing loading
• power/mass (thrust/weight[?])

• armament (this would be a plain text/memo field)

• avionics
  • radar
  • countermeasures

Feel free to edit the list directly, just leave a note about what was changed (and more importantly, why). =) —Locke Cole • t • c 22:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

These are already in {{Aircraft specifications}}; putting them in the infobox is redundant, and WP:AIR has repeatedly discussed the topic. ericg ✈ 22:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Primary users

The whole primary vs non-primary users issue is tricky. E.g. F-4 Phantom II. Retired by USAF in 1996 but still widely used elsewhere in the world. Who is the primary user now? I propose the following format: primary user as the one who originally ordered the aircraft; (semicolon) secondary users in alphabetical order. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 05:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

it is correct that the more users string do not being shown ?, seems quit confuse Jor70 15:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It only shows up when there's content in it. ericg ✈ 18:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

in the Boeing 747-400 example of this page it doesnt shows up (?) Jor70 19:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

If present, more users are added to the primary user entry and the title is changed to 'primary users'. Take a look at the code. ericg ✈ 22:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do we not have flags in the primary users? it seems pretty professional. Why not ? By the way, my apologies to BillCJ and others for adding the flags, i wasnt completely aware of the template. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Apocno10 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

I'm not sure we need to have what is turning into a full list of operators in both the text and the infobox. We might consider instead listing the original customer(s) — which usually includes the "primary user". If we are going to list users with their flags, as has recently been introduced, we need to insert a break before the first user so that there is more horizontal room for that and the country. As tiny as they are, I'm not sure the "flaglets" really add anything (besides a splash of color). Frankly, though, I prefer to deprecate the user entries altogether. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

We have to keep in mind the original purpose of the infobox: to provide at-a-glance information on an aircrafts historical statistics. That is one reason why we limit the number of users who are listed. As for the flags, I really don't think they serve any useful purpose, but take up some space. If someone doesn't know that All Nippon Airways is Japanese, there's no guarantee that they'll be able to identify the Japanese flag. Karl Dickman ^talk 00:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No flags. Impossible to make out, distracting, and they don't add anything. Not to mention that they gum up valuable horizontal space and often cause line breaks in what would otherwise be an organized infobox layout. ericg ✈ 04:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Produced vs built

What's the difference between produced and built? - Emt147 ^Burninate! 05:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC) Never mind, old code in the template.

Variants

I assume this means variants of the aircraft as in derivations of the same plane. But do we look forward as well as back. Eg de Havilland Comet has the Hawker-Siddeley Nimrod as vairant but should Nimrod list the Comet under variants? GraemeLeggett 16:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't think we should. A variant implies that something was derived from the aircraft under discussion. You can't say that the Comet is a variant of the Nimrod because it preceded it. We could potentially add a field for 'variant of', which would be an appropriate place to put the Comet. ericg ✈ 16:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have been doing some major revisions on the various Harrier article (Hawker-Siddeley Harrier, Sea Harrier, AV-8 Harrier II and RAF Harrier II). Only the HS Harrier and Sea Harrier had infoboxes; along with other things, it seems the Harrier II articles were spilt off of the HS Harrier page. So I copied the infoboxes from the HS Harrier page to the Harrier II pages, making the necessary changes (tho the dates still need updating). The HS Harrier page listed all 3 other Harrier articles under "Variants" in the infobox, so I copied this pattern on the Harrier II pages.

While it is true that the Harrier II is a wholly different aircraft than the Harrier I (almost no interchangeable parts, if any), it is the next step in its development. In addition, both the RAF and USMC have designated their Harrier IIs as variants of the earlier plane (AV-8A > AV-8B; Harrier GR.3 > GR.5), rather than giving them new desigations. Both versions of the Harrier are used in the same roles as the earlier models (unlike the Comet/Nimrod), though they are much more capable in those roles.

In addition, when one says "Nimrod", I don't assume one might mean the Comet. Likewise with the P-3 Orion and the Electra. But when someone says Harrier, I think of all versions of the Harrier jump jet, until they specify which one is meant. Note I am not including the immediate predecessors of the Harriers, the P.1127 and the Kestrel, in this list of Variants, as they were not combat aircraft but prototypes/technology demonstrators.

While listing all variants of the Harrier on all the Harrier pages may not be totally consistent with other pages, it is a unique case, because they are all Harriers. Readers who are not familar with the differences between the Harrier/Sea Harrier and the Harrier II may come to one page seeking another variant. Having them all listed in the infoboxes gives them a common place to find the other variants. That said, I will abide by the consensus.

Valid points all. I've added a 'developed from=' field which should address all of your concerns! ericg ✈ 16:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks. -- BillCJ 16:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Use of Infoboxes

The following messages were posted by Born2flie on the ARH-70 and OH-58 talk pages. He is objecting to my recnet additions of infoboxes to those pages, among others.

I definitely do not like the infobox and feel that it doesn't add anything to the page.

and

I thought WP:Air was getting away from Infoboxes. I personally don't like it since it doesn't really contribute to the page.

My response is posted on the Talk:ARH-70 page.

I am confused. If WP:Air is discontinuing the Aircraft Infobox, why are we continuting to improve it? Should I ask beforehand on every article I wish to improve? What is the official policy on using this template?

For the record, I thought that the inclusion of the Template:Infobox Aircraft was standard policy, and that I was contributing to improving the page by adding them. I didn't think it I needed anyone's approval or permission, or even a consensus, to make these additions.

However, I will abide by WP:Air policy from now on, whatever it is, as you explain it to me. If there is no consensus, I will ask for one to be formulated. I do believe they are usefull, especially as you are continuing to improve them.

Thanks for any input you may have. --BillCJ 22:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Adding an infobox is not policy. In fact, there is no real policy; however, what we've adopted is the discontinuation of specifications infoboxes in favor of this one, which is more of a summary of, well, information about the type. I think the user making the comments might be confused about the past discussions we've had on the topic. ericg ✈ 05:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent Infobox changes

To those who have worked on tweaking the Infobox: Good job. I like having the name within the box frame. The background on the pic was also needed, as many aircraft pics show a light sky. This was particularly noticible on the pic in the AV-8 Harrier II infobox after the name was moved. (I was working on that article as the changes were made.)

However, the pic background seems to wide on the sides to me. I think the same width at the top would look better. But as I have no experience wtih that sort of coding, I'm not going to attempt any tweaks on my own; it's just safer that way. Just giving my opinion here. If I'm the only one thinking this way, I can live with the way it is. Thanks. --BillCJ 20:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Should be fixed, it's been switched from a background to a border. You using Internet Explorer, by any chance? ericg ✈ 01:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It is now, thanks. And yes, I use IE. Btw, thanks for you help with the AV-8 Harrier II infobox data. I was planning on getting to that this week. --BillCJ 03:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I figured that might be the problem. Glad to help with the data - that article still needs quite a bit more work overall, I might lend a hand later in the week. ericg ✈ 03:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Nicknames?

How about including a row for nicknames? Many aircrafts have nicknames and they could be added in the infobox. Idleguy 07:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That typically shows up in the first sentence or paragraph. Infoboxes are best at summarizing stuff that might not be immediately evident. Also, the plural of aircraft is aircraft. ericg ✈ 08:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with ericg. There's already too much "stuff" in the current infobox. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Designer

Unless there was truly a single designer for an airplane, I really have to deprecate the use of this entry. Most aircraft are designed by a team of designers, and given the timelines for the design and development of modern aircraft — and most especially modern combat aircraft — this is generally the rule. While it may often have been the case in the early years of aviation and perhaps still so among homebuilders, the complexity of most modern aircraft tends to rule this out. I've noticed in the infoboxes for some modern fighters that the name of a chief engineer has been entered. This is not a good alternative. Given the many years over which design and development of an aircraft occurs, there's hardly ever one chief engineer or program manager over its entire evolutionary lifetime, which begs the question of which one should be named. Comments? Askari Mark (Talk) 22:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This field was definitely intended for older aircraft, typically from the post-ww2 period and earlier. You're absolutely right; it shouldn't be used for chief designers or lead engineers. That's the problem with infoboxes; they always wind up with fields being improperly used. I suggest you simply delete the entire field (|designer=) from the infobox template in the articles which are inappropriately using it, and modify the usage info. ericg ✈ 22:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Retired vs. Status

If we're going to have both of these in the infobox, we need to better explain their use. For one thing, isn't Retired itself a form of "Status"? Besides, with whom is it retired? The primary user? Or is it "withdrawn from use" with all users? "WFU" is certainly a "Status". In fact, care needs to be taken to differentiate between withdrawn from frontline use and WFU; the C-47, for instance, is still in operational use by a few air forces. I would deprecate the "Retired" entry as separate from "Status".

The possible statuses we might consider for an airplane would tend to be

1. In development [e.g., F-35]
2. In production, in service [e.g., F-15]
3. In service, out of production [e.g., F-4]
4. Remains in limited (operational) use [e.g., C-47]
5. Withdrawn from (operational) use (worldwide) [e.g., Me-262]

I would eschew "statusing" the small numbers of historical aircraft flown for nostalgic purposes [e.g., P-51] or converted into racers or demo aircraft. Such "ghost flight" roles are purely post-retirement and not indicative of the fleet in general. Comments? Askari Mark (Talk) 22:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If someone puts "retired" in the status field, they need to rethink, search for some sources, and find a concrete date for that retirement to place in the appropriate field. "Status" is, as you said, for special cases. If it's withdrawn, it's retired, and status is the inappropriate place for that information. ericg ✈ 04:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

"Retired" is just "Status" = WFU, so why have both "Retired" and "Status" lines — why not just "Status"? Askari Mark (Talk) 05:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why WFU would be used instead of retired, unles the aircraft is so old that the retierment date really doesn't matter, or its Air Force ceased to be without officially retiring it (like the Me-262). Rather than having Status: Retired (DATE), we just put the date in the Retired slot, keeping the line short. Simple, but contributors don't always pay attention to what goes where (which I have been guilty of in other areas, so I'm not picking; it happens). - BillCJ 05:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Until a few hours ago, there was no explanation of how these two lines were to be used, so contributors have been pretty much reduced to guessing. I would point out that if "Retired" is for the retirement date, then it should follow — not precede — "Status". Askari Mark (Talk) 06:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't given it much thought myself until Ericg explained it. I'm not sure it matters which comes first though, since only one option is intended to be used, not both at the same time. - BillCJ 07:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Retired isn't 'withdrawn from use', it's a specific date. "Withdrawn from use" is distinctly uninformative other than the most general 'this isn't used anymore'; introduced and retirement dates tell readers just how long the aircraft was in service. "withdrawn from use" needs to be immediately deprecated. Furthermore, "Status: retired {date}" would look pretty dumb below "Introduced: {date}" - we want the infobox to look as streamlined and easy-to-read as possible. Also, status and retired are mutually exclusive fields - it doesn't matter which order they're in. ericg ✈ 15:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're getting what I'm saying, Eric. First, I'm saying that WFU is a "Status"; if it's been retired, then the retirement date should be noted in "Retired". Right now you have the retirement date preceding any mention of its status! To my mind, this should be reversed. What I'm recommending is:

 |first flight = <!-- Date of first flight -->
 |introduced = <!-- Date of service entry (IOC) -->
 |retired =
 |number built = <!-- Total manufactured of all variants [incl. conversions?] -->
 |status = <!-- Current fleet service status -->
 |retired = <!-- If retired, date last aircraft was withdrawn from operational use -->

Does that make better sense? Askari Mark (Talk) 02:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You're not getting what I'm saying: if retired is used, status is deprecated; if status is used, retired is deprecated. They're mutually exclusive. The order in the code used to generate the template has nothing to do with it. Unless you're saying that an aircraft can be withdrawn from use but not retired. ericg ✈ 04:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm apparently not getting it. If I'm understanding you now, "Status" refers to any status except WFU (= retired); when an aircraft is WFU, you don't use "Status" anymore, but enter the date (year, I would suppose) in "Retired". If this is the case, then may I respectfully ask where in the template description is this made clear? It is by no means intuitively obvious. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that using both would clearly be redundant and that one would suffice:

Retired 2006-12-09

Status Retired (synonymous with withdrawn from use, as we seem to agree on)

in the same infobox seems totally inappropriate to me, and that was obviously an wrong assumption. If you could update the instructions as it seems clear to you, that might be best, as I'm not sure how to do so in a concise fashion. ericg ✈ 05:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Late to the party, as usual. I always understood Status to be anything other than retired, and even then pretty much relegated "Retired" to apply specifically to military and special-use aircraft. For instance, the XH-51 (2 copies) are now retired, but I don't think there is a date to put in the "Retired" parameter. My $.02 --Born2flie 04:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User totals

Recently, I've noticed an increasing trend in the airliner articles to put the user totals after the users in the "primary/more users" fields. There is usually far more than the stated 3 "more users" limit. Totals are usually also found in the text and/or tables of the aritcles.

Rather than just "slash and burn", and risk multiple edit wars, I thought I'd ask, and get a consensus behind me first. - BillCJ 19:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No, definitely slash and burn. Too much information simply clutters the infobox, one reason why I and others don't like having flags next to the users. Detailed information about an aircraft's users should be placed in the body of the article. Karl Dickman ^talk 19:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The counts aren't bad, but the 4+ lists of 'more users' are awful. Keep the counts, kill the excess users. ericg ✈ 01:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The top 4 commercial users should be sufficient for most airliners, assuming they really all stand out in fleet sizes. If, for example, the top 6 fleets were 100, 67, 35, 24, 22, 21, then only the first 2 or 3 are significant. For military aircraft, there are several alternatives. One set of alternatives is just listing the initial customer(s) and/or those with the largest-sized fleets. (There are a few cases where the largest numbers built were not produced by the developing country — or even used operationally by it.) Another option is just listing the original customer(s). For most aircraft, that would be just one country (although possibly more than one of its services), while consortium-developed and/or -built aircraft like the F-35 and F-16, respectively, would have several. (In some cases, there have been later production lines established — e.g., Turkey and South Korea for the F-16 — which resulted in large production quantities.) Askari Mark (Talk) 17:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Photo caption

I've noticed that the Aircraft name is centered, but the photo caption is not. Some users have been manually centering the caption, such as on the CH-53 Sea Stallion page. I actually like the caption being centered. Is this just an oversight, or is there a reason it is not centered automatically? - BillCJ 20:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I am also in favor of the caption being centered...any thoughts? Enigma3542002 07:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was tried a few months back, but the result looked bad on captions of two or more lines. Sorry we didn't record that here, but it was discussed on the main WT:AIR talk page at that time. (I think!) - BillCJ 08:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft Archive 11 #One last thought on the Infobox? Oh my! Actually, centering captions is the standard - see Template:Infobox Person, Template:Infobox Settlement or what you will. I don't think at all that multi-line centered captions look bad; and anyway there are many more short, single-line captions which look definitely awful when centered left. But what can we do? --Malyctenar (talk) 10:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Few contributors probably monitor this page. If you want to raise the issue again, WT:AIR is the best place to do it. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Captions are often more than 1 line. Users can always manually center a short caption if they really want. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, center is the standard (see also Template:Infobox Military Conflict). Also, most infobox captions use a smaller font. -- Nudve (talk) 11:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Use in a few other templates does not make it standard. A centered caption looks fine if it is a short one, but not if it take more than 1 line. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Unit Cost

Why is this parameter no longer showing up in the articles? No recent edits seem to be involved. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A recent edit was involved, actually. I forgot a closing > on a </noinclude> tag for program cost, which caused some problems for unit cost. Karl Dickman ^talk 23:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have "published" an expanded essay on understanding aircraft cost reporting at Understanding aircraft unit costs; it is based on the commentary I provided earlier on the WP:Air talk page. I notice that {{infobox Aircraft}} now has two entries for costs: "program cost" and "unit cost" rather than just the latter. May I suggest a slight modification? These should be given as (first) "Flyaway cost" and (second) "Program cost". Both are actually "unit" costs. This renaming and reordering would best mesh with my recommendations. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering about separating the list price for commercial aircraft and the unit/flyaway cost for military aircraft. Like have a "Unit price" field for commercial and "Flyaway cost" field for military. Only thing is this would mean adding those two fields to keep from having to fix Unit cost field on all the articles. :( Maybe add a switch or something to do that with the Unit cost field. Any better ideas? -Fnlayson (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, "flyaway cost" is a unit price. I understand what you're trying to do, though. Perhaps for commercial and general aviation we should just say something like "typical cost" or "typical price" with "unit" implied, as it is with FAC. If you just show a cost, most people will assume it's a unit cost. What do you think? Askari Mark (Talk) 22:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Right, just not an average one. Do you mean add a note after the number or change the Unit Cost label or "Typical cost/price"? The switch comment I made would be like adding another field like "Unit cost type=" for changing the Unit cost label maybe. That'd take some If-Then coding like is done for aircraft type and jet/prop though. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be simpler to add it as another line "choice" that auto-hides if unused? Maybe for clarity, the line entry would have hidden text stating to use that line for civil aircraft and it would print out in the infobox something like "Typical cost:" Askari Mark (Talk) 04:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Intoduced vs. Introduction

Wondering why the change, and when did the change happen? --Born2flie 04:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Mea culpa. "Introduced" is past tense - which is awkward for aircraft still in development. I thought I understood the code, but didn't realize those placed in articles previously wouldn't be automatically updated. I only caught that today. Sorry! Is there a bot that can search for the templates and replace "introduced" with "introduction"? Askari Mark (Talk) 04:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Or, the easy way around that is to go back and change the small number of templates that have already been changed in the article space and simply change the output for the parameter to show "Introduction". Still, since so very few of the aircraft articles are for future developments, it doesn't seem practical to change what was present for a small minority of articles. IMO what is currently in the HAL Tejas article would've made perfect sense even if the parameter output said, "Introduced:". --Born2flie 04:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact, that was the article I was working and what I thought I had effected. I believed my "tweak" had been successful since it worked there. It was only while I was fixing a mistake in another article yesterday that I discovered it had an entry for IOC that wasn't appearing. In any case, let me know what's the best approach and I'll do the grunt work to fix it since it was my bad. (Nothing more dangerous than an engineer who "thinks he can".) Again, my apologies. Askari Mark (Talk) 14:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Those damn engineers!! ;) Ericg has implemented both "Introduced" and "Introduction" for the meantime. I guess we should take this to the WP:Aircraft and get a consensus of the group as to which one we keep? --Born2flie 19:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Logos on Infoboxes

I have been informed by User:Zscout370, a Foundation admin, the we can't use logos in the aircraft infoboxes on aircraft pages as it violates fair use policy. (See discussion atTemplate:Infobox Boeing Airliners.) He has protected templates in the past because of this. Please read his explanation, and discuss the stuation with him before attempting to re-add the logos. I'm not going to argue about it here, just following instructions from the Foundations. I have not informed User:Zscout370 of this development as yet, but will if I have to. Thanks. - BillCJ 20:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

What if there was a <includeonly> tag on the images? Surely that would solve the problem, just as non-fair-use categories are made to not display the images with a __NOGALLERY__ magic word. Octane ^{[improve me?]} 24.05.08 1008 (UTC)

Number built

Has any standard be discussed on determing the "number built" for an aircraft? The Boeing 787 article had "1" listed even though the only one assembled so far is missing major internal systems and hasn't been powered up yet. This seems to make calling it built a bit premature. What is our standard, "assembled", "operating under power", "flown"? --StuffOfInterest 13:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Alignment of the word "Type"

The word "Type" appears to be misaligned in some articles which transclude this template, e.g. Airbus A300. I tried removing the "width:7 em" clause and that seemed to fix it in the template but didn't appear to have any visible effect in the articles transcluding the template (so I reverted my change). Any ideas? DH85868993 03:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Image size

Since the Wikipedia norm for infobox pictures seems to be 300px, I've enlarged the image to that size. If this is problematic for formatting reasons, it's fine if it's changed back to 250px. I hope I haven't stepped on any toes by not discussing it when I'm a strong advocate of discussion before making major changes. Since this change is toward the norm, I just went ahead with it as a test, and I think it looks much better enlarged. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This gives problems with images whose real size is less than 300 or even 250px. It should be provided the opportunity to specify an image size in the infobox. --Attilios (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If the real size of the image is smaller than 300 px, will it be sufficiently high-quality to merit using it in the most prominent position in the article? --Rlandmann (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Alignment of attribute labels

This isn't standard. Most {{infobox}}es use left-align for both label and value; this template's use of right-align on the label (to have a sort of "middle-align" of the columns) stands out and doesn't add any particular benefit. I reckon if left-align for both is good enough for the majority of other infoboxes it's good enough for this one. It also simplifies this template's code a bit, which should help with further work in the future. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please take this to WikiProject Aircraft; I'm not sure how many people monitor this talk page. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Crew

Hi, all, just a MILHIST member poking my head over to offer a suggestion. Shouldn't there be a crew field in the template? For example, in the B-17 Flying Fortress article, it doesn't mention the crew size anywhere (as far as I can tell, I may have missed it). I thought the best place to put that information would be in the infobox for the aircraft, and that the template might be amended to include a "crew" field. Thoughts? Parsecboy (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The number of crew should be covered in the Specifications section with {{aircraft specifications}} template or in some cases a table. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, I do see the Specs template at the bottom of the page, silly me :) Thanks for pointing that out. Parsecboy (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sure. And info in specs can repeated in the text if needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Allow {{{name}}} to be inhereited from the article title

{{editprotected}}

This is a trivial request which allows the {{{name}}} parameter to be omitted and automatically filled out if the article title matches the infobox name. It will not affect existing infoboxes, just make it a little easier to add new ones.

Change:

! colspan="2" style="font-size: large; padding-bottom: 0.3em; text-align:center;" | {{{name}}}

to

! colspan="2" style="font-size: large; padding-bottom: 0.3em; text-align:center;" | {{{name<includeonly>|{{PAGENAME}}</includeonly>}}}

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not! The name in the infobox is frequently, even usually different from the article name. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and in this case, {{{name}}} will override it. As I said, this will have no impact if {{{name}}} is specified. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

So what's the purpose of the proposed change then? --Rlandmann (talk) 12:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Where the title is the same, it allows for people adding new infoboxes to omit it. This saves both space and bytes on the article page and means users have to remember less syntax. This is a very common feature, used on such high-profile templates as {{infobox person}} and {{infobox company}}, and means one less mandatory attribute for users to mess up when adding new infoboxes. I was actually surprised it wasn't already supported here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Have aircraft articles been having a problem with this? If so, I haven't noticed. Looks like a solution in search of a problem to me... --Rlandmann (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Rlandmann. This has not been a major issue and it will only lead to more template code bloat. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 19:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thirty characters' worth of "code bloat" is more than appropriate to save at least dozens and probably hundreds of unnecessary lines of attributes. As for "not [being] a major issue", how is this to be measured, exactly? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, but unnecessary for WP:AIR aircraft articles. With the exception of aircraft using the Designation/Name format for the article names (mostly US DOD aircraft such as F-15 Eagle, most aircraft names include the manufacturer. The current consensus (one I disagree with, but follow) is to not list the manufacturer's name in the infobox. The main exceptions are for those aircraft called on;y by a number, such as with the Boeing 7x7 series. This, is most cases, the name field is use soley for the aircraft's designation and/or name, whereas most article names include the manufacturer. I don't know if there is a guideline against having the infobox title be different from the article title or not, but given the way things are around WP lately, there probably soon will be! - BillCJ (talk)

Additionally, while the article names are only ever a single, "base" model, the infoboxes often reflect alternative designations in their titles. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're interested in metrics as opposed to anecdotes as to how many articles are affected, take a look at the current transclusions - of the first twenty pages given in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox Aircraft, 80% of them would be able to make use of this change. I don't imagine that this drops precipitously over the rest of the transclusions. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

That final piece of "imagination" is indeed, well, imaginative. And wrong. Did you even read what BillCJ wrote above? The biggest group of articles for which this could make sense are United States military aircraft. Virtually everything in your sample fits that description. It appears that articles appear in "what links here" in something like order of age from oldest to newest. As you go through the list, you will find that American military types dominate the aircraft that received coverage on Wikipedia early on, and that they represent a smaller and smaller part of our coverage as time goes by. Compare the heavy saturation of US military types in the sample you used to their virtual absence in types contributed in 2008. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

So I was wrong about the drop-off, but it's still 15% of the templates in the first 20 in that list. For the sake of 30 characters of text. The point is that in at least some cases it makes it easier to add a template to an article because it allows for more centralisation of logic (and prevent the accidental omission of that attribute from causing "{{{name}}}" showing up in articles), and that it has no effect whatsoever on articles which don't make use of it. The feature finds itself used on lots of very high-profile infobox designs for that very reason. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've actually yet to see one aircraft article with "{{{name}}}" showing in the infobox. If you're aware of any, please point them out and show us the problem that you're trying to solve. This change doesn't make it "easier to add a template to an article" in anything but a small minority of articles (your tiny, unrepresentative sample notwithstanding). If you sample the 2008 or 2007 contributions, you'll find a very different result. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The "problem" I am "trying to solve" is that this is a gotcha for a would-be infobox-adder. Evidently articles which have "{{{name}}}" showing in them are quickly fixed, but this simply wouldn't occur if the template were updated. When adding infoboxen to other types of articles, editors can take this for granted. There's no real reason to force them to add an attribute which is automagically inferred by other infoboxes when editing aircraft articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, the primary issue is that article names follow certain MOS conventions that do not necessarily need to be transcluded into the Name field of the template (e.g. any Soviet aircraft -- the OKB name used in page names was never a part of the official designation). The automatic filling out of the name field will trade one problem (blank field) for another (wrong information). Blank fields will get fixed quickly. Wrong fields may persist. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 00:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of an existing precondition that {{{name}}} reflect a "correct" title for a craft as opposed to the best fit for the subject. The /doc doesn't make mention of it. Given that the infobox title is not labelled within the article itself as being "correct name" or such, this wouldn't appear to be obvious from the reader either. Certainly it does not reflect the common usage of the {{{name}}} / {{{title}}} parameter across infoboxen in different WikiProjects, and while I'm aware that WP:AIR has its own guidelines]] these are actually documented such that they can be followed. In this case I can't see any documentation that sets this out. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There is some documentation on the name field (name = REQUIRED avoid stating manufacturer (it's stated 3 lines below) unless name used by other aircraft manufacturers), but I agree it could be improved, and also at WP:AIR/PC. I have seen many infoboxes added over the past two years, and some of them, especially those added by non-English speakers (understandably) have been quite interesting! However, none come to mind that never filled out the "name" field at all! It might be the wrong name (something the proposal being discussed would not address), but it is almost always filled in. - BillCJ (talk) 01:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That's because right now it's mandatory, and produces an ugly error message when omitted. However, that still does not mean that it should be mandatory. Unlike any other field in the infobox, the title can be inferred to some degree from the article title, and even when the result is not "correct" it helps to avoid ugly syntax errors (which could be seen as automated biting in the case of inexperienced users). If this helps in some non-negligible number of cases (and it appears to do so from empirical evidence) then it would appear to be worth the ~30 extra bytes it adds to the infobox, considering that it has no impact whatsoever on existing articles or on users who already know about the {{{name}}} parameter. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I see it a different way. The "ugly error message" as you call it is an immediate flag that something has been left out and needs to be fixed. Given that I have never once seen an article having been left like this (and I take a look at every new aircraft article that gets contributed here, well, all the ones that the bot picks up) I'm forced to conclude that everyone who adds an infobox knows how to fill it in correctly. This is not surprising, since experienced contributors know how to use the template, and inexperienced editors seem to copy-and-paste from other articles. But let's talk metrics here. I asked you before whether you had ever seen an article left with {{{name}}} showing, and you declined to answer. You implied above that the reason we don't have this problem is because the problems "get quickly fixed". If you mean "quickly fixed by the contributor" then it's hardly the "bite" that you're trying to make it out to be. If you mean that other editors are stuck "quickly cleaning up the mess" - I don't think so. I've certainly never had to fix it. You've characterised this as a "gotcha" but failed to produce a single shred of evidence to suggest that there's a problem here, outside of your own imagination. Please point to one article using this infobox that has been left with {{{name}}} showing by its original contributor. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It's rather hard to bring up anything other than anecdotal evidence for this one on accounts of search tools stripping the curly brackets out of queries, but I was nearly caught out with it yesterday, and remember having been in the past too. Please consider that I am making this request because I genuinely believe that it is a low-cost gain for the project, and not because I am trying to change the way the infobox works or to indeed cause any change in people's work flow. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You were "nearly caught out". But you weren't. And (anecdotally) having visited or worked on literally thousands of aircraft articles, I've never seen anyone else who was, either. The conclusion that this is a solution to a problem that exists only in your own imagination is inescapable. The dispute here, however, is really about whether this template should fail silently (as you suggest) or fail loudly (as the other three contributors here have been saying).

Would anyone have a problem, then, if instead of Chris' suggestion of automagically filling in a missing name, the template generated a reminder text instead? This would mean that if someone left the "name" parameter out of a template, when they saved it, they would see a message saying something like "Please remember to enter the aircraft name, leaving out the manufacturer". --Rlandmann (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the reason I was not caught out is because I'm one of Wikipedia's most prolific contributors and thus know better than most how to use the preview function. Secondly, given that using a generated title is rarely egregiously wrong, and also given that it would take less code to just do what other templates do, I don't see that an error message is a better answer. Not including an attribute is not a "failure" unless it's actually wrong, which is a much stronger statement than being imperfect. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The notion that one has to be "one of Wikipedia's most prolific contributors" in order to avoid being caught out is also apparently a product of your imagination, since no-one here (not even you) can remember seeing even an absolute newbie being so "caught out".

As things stand now, the template provides feedback to the editor that something's wrong. The evidence to hand indicates that this is sufficient to prompt them to go back and fill in the field. An error message, on the other hand, would provide specific guidance as to what's expected in this field. Your proposal, however, would eliminate any and all feedback that something was missing or imperfect (however you wish to characterise it).

Of course, seeing as the problem apparently never arises in the first place, this is all a bit like debating what the best bait would be to catch the Loch Ness Monster. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to note that the editprotected request is Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Stifle (talk) 09:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Remove TFD template

{{editprotected}}

The discussion is closed, please remove the TfD template. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 18:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Done Favonian (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Type vs Role

Template:Infobox aircraft type, and hence presumably also this infobox (incidentally why are there two almost identical formats - neither says it is deprecated?), uses the terms Type and Role as if they are interchangeable, but they have distinct meanings. The type of an aircraft describes what it is (e.g. "Biplane", "Flying boat", "Amphibian", "V/STOL", "UAV"), the role of an aircraft is its purpose (e.g. "Maritime patrol", "Transport"). It doesn't make much sense for an infobox to say "Role: UAV". Could we at least have a comment warning that the "Type" parameter is displayed as "Role" ? PS There's also a typo "aircract". DexDor (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dex; this template is to all intents and purposes deprecated -- use Template:Infobox aircraft type instead. We keep this old version so that page histories of articles still render correctly. "Type" was indeed a poor choice of parameter when this template was first designed. We really ought to get a bot to fix this. I'll look at getting that done, which should make it warning unneccessary, and I'll check "Infobox: aircraft type" to make sure the typo isn't over there. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It's proably easier to just use "Role/type" as the output, and leave the field as "type". I've been bold and changed that in Template:Infobox aircraft type already, as I don't foresee it being a further issue. I can't change it here as this template is full-protected. - BilCat (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Not for general use

This infobox is still deprecated by the Aircraft Project, as noted in the previous discussion. To aid in finding these templates so that they can be uptaded to the modular format, I've created Category:Articles using Infobox aircraft. However, I can't add the hidden category to the infobox as the page is full-protected. Could an admin change the protection to Semi? If not, can yu please add
{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}||[[Category:Articles using Infobox aircraft]]}} {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Template|[[Category:Articles using Infobox aircraft| {{PAGENAME}}]]}}
to the main page, or the correct codes if I've got these wrong? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 09:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Dont understand the code but I have added it for you. Appears to be working :) MilborneOne (talk) 11:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I copied the code from Template:Aero specs missing. Some of the articles need to use a module other than {{|tlInfobox aircraft type}}, such as {{Infobox aircraft career}} for the "individual aircraft" articles like Glacier Girl. The rest don't need to be changed right away, but should be updated eventually. - BilCat (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from LikeLakers2, 23:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Please add this line to the end of the infobox aircraft type template usage: <pre><nowiki> | developed into = {{{developed into|}}} </nowiki></pre> Thanks. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 23:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

This template isn't for genreal use. See Template:Infobox aircraft begin for further information on which templates to use. If you're not sure which ones to use, I'll be happy to help. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

If {{infobox aircraft type}} is going to have a |developed into= param, then this template should have it. It already has a |developed from= param, so I don't see why not. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 02:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Because the only reason this template still exists is so that the older infobox will still work when we view the pages older histories. The developed from into field wasn't in use then, so it won't matter. - BilCat (talk)

Then why do we bother having a |developed from= option in this template if we are not going to include a |developed into= parameter? LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 15:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Because |developed from= was already being used before we converted to using the {{Infobox aircraft begin}} and the others, so it needs to be there for the viewing the older histories. - BilCat (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh. So |developed into= wasn't? Still not that good of a reason. I'd prefer not dwelling on the past. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 15:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Then don't use a template from the past. Update it to the newer style when you add the |developed into= field. It's not that difficult to do, it just takes some time. - BilCat (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Request declined, deprecated template which is only kept to maintain appearance in history. MilborneOne (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

New version in sandbox

Please check Template:Infobox aircraft/sandbox. the new version uses {{Infobox}} simplifying the code. Please post any comments here. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this infobox broken, why change? as it is not actually used anymore but kept for legacy reasons. MilborneOne (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The infobox aircraft is used in many pages. The use of {{Infobox}} simplfies the code making easier for changs in the future anf for gloabl changes in all infoboxes using it if necessary. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

OK understood but as it is not the current template it is unlikely to need changing. Cant tell from your code but does it have any visible change to appearance? MilborneOne (talk) 10:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It won't have any visible change, as far as I tested. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

OK I dont have a problem with the change then. MilborneOne (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I reckon this should be reverted. The reason it uses the component templates is because those are the canonical ones for aircraft articles; it is them that the template should be kept in sync with rather than {{infobox}}. (On another note, I don't see any indication in the previous discussion that this template is still deprecated, so I have no idea why there's a tracking category for it.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

What is the difference exactly? I see no visual difference and the big advantage is it uses a better code. You are expert on templates and you probably know better but I would like to understand. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The difference is largely social. The Aircraft projects use the split infobox by default. This exists as a less complicated alternative, but it is important that any changes in the split templates are reflected here. Manually keeping them in sync isn't really worth the effort. I'd love for aircraft articles to eventually move to an {{infobox}}-based system, but the time isn't now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. I believe you know better than me on this area. Feel free to revert. I think there are some people around than can help in implementing an{{infobox}}-based system for the mother infobox. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The primary problem with reimplementing the mother infobox is that inevitably every transcluding article needs to be updated, as presently the template requires editors to manually enter the "start table" wikicode before the infobox declaration. The problem with repeating sections can probably be mitigated fairly easily now that {{infobox}} has module support. Your sandbox code here will serve as an excellent testbed in implementing this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox aircraft program was converted from using the module format to a standalone format at User:Magioladitis request, aparently without informing WP:AIR. So now we have an infobox that is different from the rest of the WPAIR article templates. Is it time to look into updating the rest of our templates to the newer wikicode format, but keeping the module system? - BilCat (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)