This template is formatted as a complement to Template:Infobox Aircraft Begin, and is maintained by WP:AVIATION. Please show the courtesy of discussing changes to style and layout first, and acheieve at least a semblance of a consensus before initiating such changes. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, this refers to this revert. I'll take it to WT:AVIATION for rubber-stamping, although I should remind everyone that this is not a prerequisite to editing anything under that WikiProject's purview. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The description of this template is being interpreted by some editors to mean that the template should be used to create a "Lead image box" on aviation articles that would not otherwise have an infobox. A "Lead image box" means the article title is duplicated above the lede image and a box placed around them (e.g. ). I have several problems with this: (1) This contradicts WP:AIRMOS#Infobox which says "the infobox is purely optional", (2) we're inconsistent within aviation - currently General aviation has the box, but Military aviation doesn't, (3) we're inconsistent with (AFAIK) the rest of WP which uses infoboxes "to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears" (from WP:IBX) - this is the only reference to "Lead image box" I can find, (4) On small screens the duplicated title means it's less likely that the image will be visible when the page is opened, (5) having a pseudo-infobox on generic articles (e.g. Helicopter) makes them look like specific articles (e.g. Bell 222), (6) Any guidance telling editors to use a specific infobox should be in the relevant MOS (or are editors expected to look through templates for any that say "use me"?), (7) It's unnecessary clutter in the code.
This template documentation (Usage and Example) should be changed to not imply that every aviation article should have its lead image "infoboxed". DexDor (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The wording there was arrived at by consensus. The info box is very widely used in many general aviation articles. I don't see a good argument presented here to change that. - Ahunt (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the OP's point 5 - since the big title text over the top of the picture would say, in that example, "Helicopter", I don't understand the concern. As for the rest, as noted, it's long-standing project consensus that the infobox should be used on all articles, and frankly, an article without an infobox, even if it's just to hold a picture, is somehow wrong in appearance. - The BushrangerOne ping only 23:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)