Template talk:Infobox Aircraft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aviation
WikiProject
General information
Main project page talk
Style guide
Announcements and open tasks talk
 → Maintenance talk
 → New articles (archive) talk
Assessment department (Log) talk
 → Featured articles (15) talk
 → Good articles (53) talk
Collaboration department talk
Peer review department talk
Contest talk
Showcase
 → Featured picture gallery talk
Portals
 This box: view • talk • edit  · changes
AVIATION This template is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Template This article has been rated as Template-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)