Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox aircraft

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Testing and comparing.

[edit]

Prarambh20 (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't be testing draft infoboxes on live articles. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then, please suggest a another best way to test whether replacement will be possible properly or not? without any breaking. Moreover, no parameters have changed, and the term "draft" is a matter of perspective. Prarambh20 (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sandbox and testcases (Wikipedia:Template sandbox and test cases). As happened with the alterations to the aircraft specs template: see here {{Aircraft specs/sandbox}} and {{Aircraft_specs/testcases}} GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing a merged version of following Infoboxes.

[edit]

Greetings,
Based on the outcome of the discussion, I have proposed a merged version of {{Infobox aircraft begin}}, {{Infobox aircraft type}}, {{Infobox aircraft career}}, {{Infobox aircraft engine}}, and {{Infobox aircraft program}}, which will be used in the {{Infobox aircraft}}. This merged version is a drop-in merge and includes almost all types of parameters. However, in some cases, the same type of parameters from different infoboxes are presented under a single label. To address this, a label has been chosen that accurately represents each parameter. As a result, some level changes can be observed in this new merged version. Additionally, all image parameters are now integrated with the Infobox aircraft, so the Infobox aircraft begin no longer needs to be used separately.

The levels of aggregate parameters in this merged version are as follows:


Perametares Label
Construction date/produced Manufactured
Manufacturer/manufacturers Manufacturers
Owners/Primary users Management (if "Primary Users" then Management and usage)
First flight/First run/Initiated Inaugural
Developed into/preserved at Transformed

The total number of parameters in this merged version is 48, and the total number of labels is 36. Prarambh20 (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Management and usage" doesn't sound right for a label for aircraft operators. michael60634 / talk / contributions 04:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Rearranged parameters under different headings and added new parameters related to the specifications, dimensions, and performance data of the aircraft, carrier, or engine. Prarambh20 (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno, @Steelpillow, @BilCat, @Primefac, @Rlandmann - any thoughts guys? because I don't know what to do now or what should be the next step! Prarambh20 (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm out of town until next week, so I really don't have a lot of time to go into details at the moment. As far as the specifications sections go, that wasn't part of the discussion to merge the infoboxes. I know other language Wikipedia do have specs in their infoboxes, but WP:AIR has preferred not to do that. We have separate templates for the specs on English Wikipedia, and there would need to be a discussion on adding them to the aircraft infobox first. BilCat (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that using the specification parameters in the Infobox would be more appropriate and standard, as these provide key facts about the aircraft. It is better to use these parameters in a single Infobox rather than using another template to present the same type of information in a different section of the article. Moreover, many articles prefer to use Wikitable instead of the Aircraft specs template. I am not against using the Aircraft specs template, but it can provide specification information in a broader way, while the Infobox parameters can express key facts very succinctly. Prarambh20 (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but that's beyond the scope of the original merge discussion. You can present that as an option to add the specs, but you'll need a consensus to implement it in the final infobox. BilCat (talk) 03:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Implementing the original discussion + some additional modifications that do not disregard the original discussion, isn't it possible? If not, then I will consider removing them until any future discussion. Prarambh20 (talk) 08:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Back to normal, removed extra specifications and performance perameters. Prarambh20 (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Elbow-deep in an ArbCom case, but once that is over I can take a look. Primefac (talk) 07:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not engines. I remain very firmly against including engines in this merge. Aircraft engine is in Category:Aircraft engines, which is a sub-category of Category:Engines, but, not of Category:Aircraft as such. Whatever their use, engines form an entirely distinct branch of engineering and have their own way of being summarised. They should no more use the same infobox as aircraft than should, say, wheels or hydraulics or digital computers. Many engines are used for multiple purposes; air, water, land, industrial. The Napier Lion and Rolls-Royce Avon being typical examples. Any merge of engine infoboxes should be in that direction. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A consensus has been reached during the merger discussion to combine Infobox engine into this Infobox. The merging of Infobox aircraft engine parameters does not result in any loss of information or value, and thus there have been no issues encountered during the process. Prarambh20 (talk) 07:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To maintain consistency and avoid confusion among users, related parameters are often grouped together under the same label. For example, the "Construction date" and "Produced" parameters are both related to the date when the aircraft or engine was manufactured, as explained in the respective template documentation. Similarly, "First flight", "First run", and "Initiated" all represent the date when the aircraft or engine was first successfully tested or used. By grouping these parameters under a common label, it helps prevent users from misunderstanding their purpose and potentially misusing them. Additionally, some labels may be representative, depending on which parameters are being used. Prarambh20 (talk) 07:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're getting hung up on how editors would use the template and forgetting that we write for the reader. Between template documentation and clear parameter labelling - (first_flight=, first run= ), the misuse of the template is low but casual readers are going to get a disconnect when they see "inaugural" for first flight because inaugural is not the phrase used for that event (even though we have moved away from "Maiden flight"). GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I seem to have just been able to do that myself - see {{Infobox aircraft engine/testcases}} for an example of the engine infobox with an image but without calling Infobox aircraft begin. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see much difference between Template:Infobox aircraft engine/sandbox and the merged version of this Infobox in terms of parameters formating. Both are doing exactly the same thing, and in both cases, there is no need to use Infobox aircraft begin. If a merger of all Infoboxes within Infobox aircraft is possible, as per the results of the discussion, then why use one suddenly separately? Prarambh20 (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way no disrespect to the work you done (really appreciate), just disagreements. Prarambh20 (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, Infobox aircraft engine has already been merged with this Infobox, so there is no need to try to "fit" it, because All the parameters are correctly done. Additionally, in case of a replacement, simply remove the {| |} format and the Infobox aircraft begin, and the new Infobox will work properly. As I have previously stated, all Infobox aircraft engine parameters have been successfully merged here, and whether used separately or with this new merged version, the replacement process will be exactly the same. I fail to understand which aspects are considered more "harder" in this process. Prarambh20 (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The agreed process was to merge the infoboxes for simpler use by editors
1) Why have you introduced aircraft specifications into the template? That is not part of the agreed merge and goes against established practice and principle of infofox.
2) Why are you using parameters under labels not used in the original infoboxes? - the outcome was merge, not redesign the infobox layout. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall any specifications being discussed that prohibited the addition of extra parameters. This merger was a "drop-in" version, and no information was lost. Only a few similar parameters were presented under a single label (around 4-5). For example, if three parameters represent the date when the product was first successfully used, and they are presented under a single label that clearly represents the date and context, what is wrong with that? Isn't that the basic idea? I don't think using different synonym labels goes against any "principles" or "standards." Yes, there were some labels that did not represent the parameter correctly, but I will change those and make the labels representative. Not all commonly chosen labels are bad. Additionally, adding new parameters does not result in the loss of any information or value; it actually has the opposite effect. I have already explained my reasons for adding those "specifications" parameters and how they can be an improvement. However, if the editors think that we should not add these new parameters, then I have no objections. I just attempted to create a version that was "drop-in" and also an improvement. That's it. Prarambh20 (talk) 08:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if I may ask, is it in accordance with the "PRINCIPLES" to label someone's work as "unnecessary" just because of creative differences? @GraemeLeggett Prarambh20 (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Prarambh20: "I don't recall any specifications being discussed that prohibited the addition of extra parameters" is no excuse; there was no consensus for this change. Yet you argue for including engines, which are not even aircraft, because consensus. There is a lack of consistency in your approach which sets my alarm bells ringing. I would suggest that you might need to cool down and listen a bit harder to your fellow Wikipedians as to just what this merge is trying to achieve. For a start, I'd suggest that you re-read the posts about engines in that initial discussion - their inclusion was questioned by me, and BilCat suggested deferring that discussion. To me, that means deferring their inclusion as well. The lesser cloning of the starter template into the engine one, as suggested both by myself there and GraemeLeggett above, was not ruled out as a solution. One could therefore question the blanket merge decision of the closer. At present, you are going against the local consensus building in this discussion, so I think you need to reflect on that too. Maybe that limited merge of the starter template into the engine template can offer you a compromise you could accept, while we follow up a further discussion of engines in general? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I have already discussed many times about the "specifications" parameters and have agreed to their removal. Please see my other comments. However, in the case of the inclusion of Infobox aircraft engine, I did not find many opposing comments in the discussion. I think we should respect the final conclusion of the discussion. I am not in favor of keeping the Infobox aircraft engine stand-alone by going against the conclusion, but it can happen if it gets support from other editors. I made some changes to improve the merger, and not including Infobox aircraft engine goes completely against the discussion. Prarambh20 (talk) 09:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Steelpillow, By the way, I am cool. Maybe for some of my word choices, It seem like I am being harsh, but I am not. Apologies if it seems like that. Prarambh20 (talk) 09:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better to challenge the closing judgement than to interpret it over-broadly. But I agree that if we can establish a clearer consensus about engines here, that would not be necessary. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Prarambh20: (edit conflict) There is an agreed community/project layout for aircraft articles. It says what goes in the infobox and what doesnt, Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content and my objections for that reason is policy based rather than creative differences. And in that respect, putting things in the infobox that aren't going to be used is unnecessary work. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will remove those extra parameters, guys. Please, cool down. Neither of us can achieve anything by blaming me. Working together, the goal is to complete the project quickly, nothing else. Prarambh20 (talk) 09:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: All the specifications and performance-based parameters have been removed, and "first flight," "first run," "initiated," "last flight," "retired," "concluded," and "expected" - all of these parameters are now presented under their specific label. Prarambh20 (talk) 10:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the invitation to comment. After a bit of consideration, I think I'll make my own proposal for a different merge strategy. Hopefully I'll have time in the next week or two to present it to the project. I appreciate your work though. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there any issues with the proposed version? Thank you. Prarambh20 (talk) 07:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rlandmann, I think it would be better to improve the current version and make necessary changes to it, rather than starting everything from the beginning again. The discussions have come a long way, with many suggestions and improvement proposals. Along with the discussions, the current version has transformed from one editor's choice to a collaborative input from several editors. Now, after all the time, work, and discussions, is it appropriate to start the merger again, ignoring everything that happened? I don't know. But what I do know is that the current version is very close to completing the merger. I would like to suggest that we first finish the implementation and then discuss more ideas and proposals, as ultimately the parameters would remain the same. Thank you very much. Prarambh20 (talk) 10:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But, if it was decided by the editors to ignore all the discussions and work and create another merged version, then I guess I am not capable enough to oppose that. Perhaps some editors doesn't like the version I proposed for some reasons. Okay, never mind. Prarambh20 (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're completely, absolutely free to continue work on whatever you like; neither I nor anyone else here is stopping you! After reviewing the work so far, I just think I'll be able to contribute best from a clean sheet. It will be up to the project to decide which one better suits the project's needs and goals. So please, by all means, proceed. But I wanted to give you the heads-up that I will be pursuing a different option. Thanks again for your ongoing work here. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rlandmann: May I ask that you at least explain what you are unhappy about with the current direction, so that we can begin reappraising it for ourselves while we await your more concrete proposals? Both warning someone their work may be flawed and nugatory, while at the same time encouraging them to continue with, it does send a very mixed message. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fair. Essentially, I'm far from convinced that a monolithic, mega-template to fit a large number of disparate use cases is fundamentally the right approach here, and is certainly not the only solution that complies with the TfD decision. Secondly, there's an opportunity here for discussion around those use-cases and what makes most sense for the clear and succinct communication of essential information about the various topics that this WikiProject curates. Rlandmann (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I happen to agree with you. The more I re-read that discussion and follow up the template lore expressed in it, the more bad things I see about it. I look forward to your alternative proposal. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK -- here's what I'm thinking. --Rlandmann (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Type

[edit]

The current label "Type" should not be used. By convention it usually refers to the designation of the model and variant, for example "P-51D Mustang" or "North American P-51D Mustang". But it is often used loosely for other characteristics, especially for aircraft programmes where it indicates the role or class envisaged (such as Sixth-generation fighter). So we need to disambiguate these characteristics. Especially in a rambling and multi-purpose template such as this one, where the term changes meaning according to context, this is of great importance. Some terms and example of usage, that we have adopted to disambiguate tabular lists of aircraft, may be found at Template:Avilisthead/doc. I am guessing that Role (such as a fighter) is intended here, but maybe that needs clarification first? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that changing the label from "Type" to "Role" would make the template clearer and less ambiguous, especially for aircraft where "Type" can be confusing. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Prarambh20 (talk) 12:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Changed the label. Prarambh20 (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

snake_case

[edit]

Converting all the parameters into snake_case as per MOS:IB! Prarambh20 (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Prarambh20 (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Please consider to add comments under related subsection, thank you!

The following WikiProjects have been informed of this discussion:

(Sorry it took me so long, been v. busy off-wiki — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 05:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Infobox aircraft engine

[edit]
There's a limited number of editors who weighed in on this part, but among these, the consensus is that {{Infobox aircraft engine}} should not be merged with {{Infobox aircraft}}. The reasons against the merger is because engines and aircrafts have different engineering, therefore we would want to avoid unnecessary mixture of engine/aircraft content on articles solely about engines or solely about aircraft. Discussion on whether to {{Infobox aircraft engine}} should be merged with {{Infobox aircraft begin}} was more sparse; I would suggest simply WP:BEBOLD and do it (and ask for help from an admin if needed). starship.paint (exalt) 14:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Should the template {{Infobox aircraft engine}} be merged with this Infobox as per the result of the merger discussion, or should it remain as a standalone separate Infobox (with the merger of {{Infobox aircraft begin}})?

If separate, then please specify whether it should be in Infobox format or the current format. Prarambh20 (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that {{Infobox aircraft engine}} would be better refactored as a standalone template. The Aircraft engine article is in Category:Aircraft engines, which is a sub-category of Category:Engines, but, not of Category:Aircraft as such. Whatever their use, engines form an entirely distinct branch of engineering and have their own way of being summarised. They should no more use the same infobox as aircraft than should, say, wheels or hydraulics or digital computers. In engineering generally there are multiple applications for engines; air, water, land, industrial. Tor two more of these we have {{Infobox engine}} (internal combustion) and {{Infobox rocket engine}} (spacecraft), while there appears to be none for say marine engines or industrial gas turbines. Yet the same engine article may need to cover several of these. There is clearly scope for template rationalisation there, and it will be easier to do that if Template:Infobox aircraft engine is not mixed and mashed into some otherwise totally unrelated infobox. There is also the stepwise rollout process; first agreeing the new template and then updating all the relevant articles. Updating all the aero engine articles with the merged aeroplane template, and then coming back to do the same thing with a new merged engine template, seems like nugatory work to me. So I'd approve a first step of simply merging a copy of {{Infobox aircraft begin}} into {{Infobox aircraft engine}}. That's one template out the door at least, and it leaves a cleaner path to rationalising the engine infoboxes. But is such a merged engine template realistic? I think we need to widen this discussion and invite members of other engine-related wikiprojects to come and comment here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The difficulty in mergimg with most other engine infoboxes is that they generally include specs. Is that really a direction we want to go in, given the kerfluffle above? For commonality's sake, I'd prefer to keep our aircraft infoboxes and specs templates within the project. BilCat (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why should aero engine infoboxes differ from other engine infoboxes? Arbitrary and isolated decisions by arbitrary and isolated Wikiprojects does not strike me as a sustainable reason. Maybe the other projects have something to tell us, maybe we have something to tell them, maybe we should find out which, before making another isolated and arbitrary decision. Take for example {{Infobox rocket engine}}. It is full of specs. Some aircraft are powered or augmented by rocket engines; we have an article specially about them. Should their rocket aero engines have the specs given in the infobox, like all the other rocket engines? Maybe the template should include the specs but only the space folks fill those fields in, just like we are being given type, programme and kitchen sink parameters in the new super-standard aero template, but only the relevant ones are to be filled in. You say "for commonality's sake" and I say yes indeed, however that applies primarily across engines and not aircraft as you seem to unconsciously assume. On what objective basis should aero engines be templated up as aircraft and not as engines? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Yeah, I know, I may have disagreed with keeping the Infobox aircraft engine standalone, but after progressing with the discussion and as per the comments above, I think that not merging the engine Infobox would make sense, as an engine is really a different entity from an aircraft. So, if there is an engine that can be used for both an aircraft and a spacecraft, then using an Infobox only related to aircraft would not seem very appropriate. While acknowledging the fact that all the parameters of Infobox aircraft engine can be easily merged with this one, I believe that similar parameters do not negate the fact that this Infobox is not a perfect one to merge Infobox aircraft engine, which is mostly related to an engine rather than an aircraft. .Prarambh20 (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you all don't mind my adding another comment, among all the project members. Prarambh20 (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all. Non-project members often have a wider perspective on these discussions. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
are you asking to have the same discussion a second time? Nowakki (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, please see above conversation and discussion to understand the context. By the way, this discussion is only about Infobox aircraft not the full discussion again. Prarambh20 (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you need to clarify.
Should the template "Infobox aircraft engine" be merged with this Infobox as per the result of the merger discussion
with which template? Nowakki (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Grammatically, "this template" should refer to the template for which this page is the talk page, viz. Template:Infobox aircraft. I would assume it does so. The question addressed in this sub-section is, should Template:Infobox aircraft engine be merged in with it or not? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
anyone ever looked into the possibility of not using a template engine to do work it was not designed for?
one thing unrelated for example, but which i have a problem with is that a ship very often duplicates a ship class infobox to a high degree. all ships of the class have the same length for example.
trying to do the infobox thing right with something that does not support inheritance or where the reason to redesign it is because it happens to require a |} to be placed at the end feels to me as if wikipedia should after 15 years think about doing a custom infobox implementation and stop relying on templates.
if two aircraft use the same engine, then the engine data should not be added twice. the aircraft infobox should reference the engine infobox and the engine infobox shouldn't even be in the same wikitext file as the aircraft (it should not be duplicated). in programming circles this is called the 'one definition rule' and most professional software projects follow this rule religiously, because duplication poses such a grave problem. Nowakki (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of combining these templates is not to include engine data in an aircraft article's infobox, but to be able to use the same template whether the article is about an aircraft or about an aero engine. The current system is complicated - see the discussion on the main merger proposal above this one and the even earlier discussion that links to. Best to be familiar with what is going on before suggesting alternative ways out of the maze. And yes, I do very much sympathise with your infobox design issues. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i do understand the problem.
The idea of combining these templates is not to include engine data in an aircraft article's infobox
but that is what will happen when the templates are merged.
i'd say that the cleanest solution would be to allow engine keys in the aircraft template and keep the aircraft engine template exactly the same as the subset of keys used in the aircraft infobox. the key idea is to arrive at a workable solution that makes the least technical compromises. if an engine article has an aircraft template, that compromise will be made in hundreds of pages and it will lead to the same kind of confusion as before. Nowakki (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly, are you suggesting using a wrapper version of Infobox aircraft on Infobox aircraft engine? Prarambh20 (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i don't know what that means. i am suggesting to keep the name "infobox aircraft engine" in an engine article and not use the name "infobox aircraft". this can be done with 2 templates that are kept in sync or by whatever wrapper magic you think of. Nowakki (talk) 22:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
this can be done with two templates that are kept in sync - as far as I understand, this may refer to WP:WRAPPER. I might be wrong. Prarambh20 (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you want to add more keys to the aircraft template. that can not be accomplished with a wrapper. Nowakki (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I didn't want a wrapper , just clarifying, as your previous comments might express the idea of wrapping. That's why. (by the way adding more parameters does not affect old ones). Thank you. Prarambh20 (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
if i wanted to not duplicate ship class data for each ship's infobox, would that even be possible? if i created a custom infobox template for each ship class the answer is yes. but is there a more generic way that allows this overpopulation of the infobox namespace be avoided while still achieving the goal?
ideally i would just want to add a class name to a ship infobox and the infobox would be populated from out-of-line data (not specified as arguments to the ship infobox).
or, to specify an engine model by name in an aircraft infobox with the same end result of all the necessary transformations carried out automagically. that would seem to be a more desirable solution. Nowakki (talk) 09:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no engine data in the the aircraft engine infobox. But an engine is not an aircraft and to combine the aircraft engine infobox with the aircraft infobox means 1) non-intuitive call to aircraft infobox on engine articles 2) no possibility of development of the aircraft engine infobox content/layout without knock on effect on the infobox in aircraft articles. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention the engines at all in the aircraft infobox, but save them for the specifications template, is the best idea. It's what we do now, and nobody is suggesting we change that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"infobox aircraft engine" is supposed to be merged with "infobox aircraft". that's why we are here. Nowakki (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blame that on a faulty initial premise. What should have been proposed is merging {{Infobox aircraft begin}} with {{infobox aircraft engine}} AND {{Infobox aircraft begin}} with the aother infobox aircraft templates. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nowakki: Yes the proposal is to merge the templates, But no it is not to merge the content. For aircraft articles only aircraft parameters are to be entered, and for engine articles only engine parameters are to be entered. Strictly no mix'n'match. (Others of us reject the proposal for other reasons, as discussed above). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Specifications and performance parameters:

[edit]
Consensus is against adding the specifications, citing that Aircraft infoboxes should avoid this level of detail. starship.paint (exalt) 15:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Should we include the specifications, dimensions, and engine performance-based parameters presented in the sandbox in the live version? Prarambh20 (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest we wait and see what we agree about the whole template merge tree, before we get into this. No point in doing nugatory work that has to be undone later.— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I think there may be some misunderstanding or misinterpretation. Of course, if the discussion is not in favor of merging aircraft engines, then all parameters related to the engine will be removed or not added. Similarly, if the discussion is in favor of merging aircraft engines, then all related parameters will be added. But for now, we should think about at least adding those specification parameters that are only related to aircraft. Thank you. Prarambh20 (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since you asked for it:
To my knowledge, no one asked you to perform these merges. If so, you volunteered to do this, and we appreciate that. But you need to to realize that this merger is already undesired by WPAIR, and is being forced on us against our express wishes. So now is really not the time or place to try to force something else on us that at we do NOT want. BilCat (talk) 10:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did I force you guys into the merger? There was already a conclusion of the merger discussion, and I just implemented it. Most of the proposals and objections that were raised, I agree with, except for the engine one. Prarambh20 (talk) 10:25, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think I should not work on this and only WP:AIR members are allowed to do this, then fine. I will leave the project. You guys carry on, and I hope we will soon find a conclusion. Thank you very much. Prarambh20 (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting that only WP:AIR members should be allowed to do this. Just be patient with us, because this is a difficult process for us. As I said, I do appreciate the work you've done so far. BilCat (talk) 11:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that the members of WP:AIR did not want this merge, but it is also true that the wider Wikipedia community established a consensus for the merge and thus collectively "forced" it on the project. For right or wrong, this is how Wikipedia works. I don't win every argument here, and this is one such. I would hate for good Wikipedians such as Prarambh20 to be put off from collaborating with Project members. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's how Wikipedia works, and I'm fine with that. There will be be plenty of time to discuss improvements and expansions to the infobox once the merge is complete. I have some improvements in mind, but again, now isn't the time for that. (The Engine infobox is a separate issue, and does need a decision presently.) BilCat (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary duplication of information in the article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. BilCat (talk) 11:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is one good reason why I'd like to engage editors from other projects that use engine templates; is there a case for standardising where this data goes in all engine articles, or at least for offering a standardised engine info template? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (or a rather a suggestion): Perhaps some visualization would help? Could someone name the two infoboxes that would come from complete opposite ends of the spectrum, two infoboxes that are as different as they possibly can be, then post a merged version of the two, to see what we're potemtially dealing with? JMHO Cheers - wolf 06:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A merged version of all the mentioned infoboxes was presented on {{Infobox aircraft}}, and a proposed merged version of {{Infobox aircraft engine}} and Infobox aircraft begin (about which the discussion is ongoing) can be found on Template:Infobox aircraft engine/sandbox, the testcases, Template:Infobox aircraft engine/testcases. Thank you. Prarambh20 (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, the above refers to a merged version of the aircraft-related infoboxes, including their engines. There has been no equivalent merge work on the engine-related ones. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Power output of internal combustion engines depends upon the barometric pressure surrounding the engine, which is why standards used for car engines always define what this pressure is, and why in aviation, power output figures typically include an altitude figure (barometric pressure and thus power output drop with increasing altitude). Now, this means that a single engine performance-based parameter does not make that much sense. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 07:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Triumph Trophy is a perfect example of how it shouldn't be done. Infoboxes should be summaries only and not longer than the article text. On rocket engines that power aircraft (discussed above) I have been slowly converting their infoboxes to a standard aircraft engine infobox and using Template:Rocketspecs in the specifications section, that being the only difference between a gas turbine or piston aircraft engine article, Armstrong Siddeley Screamer is an example. There was for a while one user resisting this change making it more difficult than it needed to be. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Let's start the Implementation!

[edit]

Let's commence using the Infobox aircraft on pages since it is in a suitable condition, with most of the work already completed, except for some documentation (excluding engine pages, of course). Once the discussion concludes, we can proceed to remove parameters solely related to the engine, as the specifications are presently unused in this Infobox. I see no issue with initiating the replacement. Considering the eventual necessity of this transition, it would be better to begin sooner rather than later. Thank you very much! Prarambh20 (talk) 22:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've changed all the parameter names by including underscores; how does that help implementation?
Why isn't 'developed fro' next to 'developed into' as per the current infoboxGraemeLeggett (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I changed thoes into snake case as per MOS:IB instructions and the replacement are gonna done by AWB so as far as I understand, perameters replacement ( adding an underscore ) isn't a much problem for WP:AWB tasks. Thank you so much. Prarambh20 (talk) 09:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and I will reorganize the developed from - into, parameters as soon as I can. Prarambh20 (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Prarambh20 (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just spotted wide-ranging issue

[edit]

In {{infobox aircraft career}} |Type= is used to indicate what a particular aircraft is an example off - eg Enola Gay as a particular example of a Boeing B-29 Superfortress but has now been merged with type (fighter, bomber etc) from {{infobox aircraft type}} and will appear under "Role" in new infobox. Suggest we have both appear under "Type" in the infobox instead of "Role". GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To change of "Type" to "Role" was initially suggested here and then implemented. Prarambh20 (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But we overlooked the use of 'type' in the context of individual aircraft. We need to retain the meaning of role when it's used in Infobox Aircraft Type and meaning of specific type as used in Infobox Aircraft Career. If it's all being done programmatically then I suggest
  1. Addition of aircraft_role to parameter list,
  2. Render the new aircraft_role with label of 'role'
  3. Render 'type' with label of 'Type',
  4. At switchover convert instances of the parameter type within calls to template Infobox aircraft type to aircraft_role=
As an alternative enhancement, in this template as it currently stands, redefine 'type' as 'aircraft_type' and at switchover convert type= within calls to Infobox Aircraft Career as to aircraft_type. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If others doesn't have any objection, then I have no problem to implement the suggested changes. Prarambh20 (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, aircraft_type under label "Type" and aircraft_role is under label "Role". Prarambh20 (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I've added an example of how Aircraft career works currently for comparison to the test case page for this template at Template:Infobox_aircraft/testcases#Comparision2_with_{{tl|Infobox_aircraft_career}}. I've also spotted that manufacturer label is plural, suggest that reverts to singular in the infobox. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done the manufacturer label is now singular. Prarambh20 (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft career distance travelled parameter with " unit_pref " parameter

[edit]

The current version of this template uses some clever trickery in combination with a parameter to indicate unit preference to render the distance travelled with converted units in appropriate order. I think this is an unneeded feature which doesn't address any identified issue; editors are capable of putting in values (and if desired using the convert template with unit order switching as required) and that it will avoid any problems if parameter data is not solely numerical. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done removed. Prarambh20 (talk) 12:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative approach

[edit]

Hi folks -- before we jump in and mash everything together, I suggest we take a step back to take a look at the kinds of information that these Infoboxes contain. I'm suggesting a more nuanced, two-step approach and would love your comments and suggestions please. Rlandmann (talk) 09:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you all the way on stage 1. Step 1. Which could have been done from the start and completed by now. That doesn't preclude considering the future merging of templates.
Regarding Stage 2, I'm against sticking more specifications into infoboxes. I looked at an example of a rocket engine (SpaceX Merlin) which is choc ful of specs and long on the page even when params such as first use date is omitted. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added my initial thoughts on the appropriate discussion page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Proposal Adaptation for Aircraft Infoboxes

[edit]

As per the consensus reached in the merger discussion, the templates {{Infobox aircraft begin}}, {{Infobox aircraft type}}, {{Infobox aircraft career}}, {{Infobox aircraft engine}}, and {{Infobox aircraft program}} are intended to be merged into "{{Infobox aircraft}}". Based on the outcome of the merger discussion, two proposals have been presented: one suggesting a direct, common and singular merger of all the Infoboxes, and the other proposing an alternative approach rather than a common merge.

Proposal 1: Merged Version:

This version involves a direct, comprehensive merger with the intention of creating a singular and standardized Infobox aircraft template. The merged version incorporates all parameters and labels from each of the original Infoboxes, In some cases, similar parameters from those Infoboxes are presented under a common label. It also allows for simple replacement options and adheres to MOS:IB.

(The merged version refers to the current iteration of the Infobox aircraft.)

Further discussions regarding the merged version: Initially, this merged version contained some spaces that were subsequently removed following discussions on the talk page. Additionally, it includes Infobox aircraft engine as decided in the TfD, although some editors have expressed opposition to including aircraft engine, and have suggested initiating discussion challenging the TfD closing statement to deliberate whether or not to include the Infobox aircraft engine. However, a definitive conclusion has not yet been reached.

Proposal 2: Alternative Approach:

An alternative approach has been presented in a two-step process, which advocates for maintaining standalone Infoboxes instead of merging them into a single Infobox. This approach suggests merging only {{Infobox aircraft begin}} into each of the four Infoboxes, while proposing the replacement of Infobox aircraft engine with other engine-specific Infoboxes, such as reciprocating, turbine, rocket engines, and electric motors, based on the context of each page.

For a clearer understanding of this alternative approach, we encourage you to review the discussions on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Infobox refactor 2023 page.

Now the question arises: should we adopt the merged version (Proposal1) or follow the alternative approach (Proposal2)?

  • Option 1: Support the merged version as per Proposal 1.
  • Option 2: Support the merged version, excluding the Infobox aircraft engine.
  • Option 3: Support the alternative approach, Proposal 2.
  • Option 4: Support the alternative approach, but with modifications or additional considerations (please specify).
  • Other: (please provide your specific suggestion or proposal).

Thanks, -- Prarambh20 (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I think we need more time to explore Proposal 2 and establish its viability, as its implementation discussion is still in an early stage. At present, I am provisionally in favour of it; as an editor, I do not appreciate reams of irrelevant parameters, nor the associated risk of abusing them. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There isn't even a full proposal to compare yet. Suggest - strongly - you retract this as RFC and save it for the right time. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Administrator note I have removed the RFC tag from this discussion, as the "Proposal 2" option has not even been up for a week yet. From a "next time" perspective, please make sure the RFC question is short and to-the-point, per WP:RFCNEUTRAL; in other words a signature should be after the first sentence (or two) to not make for a huge transclusion elsewhere. Primefac (talk) 10:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to documentation of the alt parameter?

[edit]

Per heading. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GraemeLeggett: What do you mean? It was added six weeks ago in this edit and hasn't changed since. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was missing in the template example - along with other parameters - I've fixed it now. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parameter names from the "begin" template

[edit]

{{Infobox aircraft begin}} (talk) is to be cloned/merged in here. It needs to remain extant after the clone/merge, until it has also been merged into the aero engine template. It has a number of parameters which raise issues for a simple copy-across.

image_border
not a widely used parameter and not present in this template, but it is used in a few cases. Should it be merged across, or ignored?
size
is an alternative name for image_size, and is probably also used in some articles. There is no need to merge it, provided any articles which invoke it are first refactored to rename it image_size.
long caption
needs to be likewise daisy-chained as long_caption. The steps in this refactoring merge should not break anything. Options are to add the latter to the existing begin template, or to temporarily add the former to the merged infobox. I am in favour of the former, as it reduces the scope for third-party finger trouble.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose swapping position of "| image" and "| logo" in page source code generated

[edit]

Per discussion here, on pages with both a logo and an image, if | logo comes before | image in the code for a page's infobox, the Navigation Popup tool uses the logo in the popup, where the lead image would be more appropriate (e.g. as it was at this revision of Eurofighter Typhoon - the popup uses the Eurofighter logo, where the page's lead image of the Typhoon itself would be better).

If their positions are switched in the code, the rendering of the infobox on the page itself stays the same, with the logo still above the image, but the navigation popup correctly shows the image (as, following an edit, in the currently current revision - Eurofighter Typhoon, 14:34, 6 February 2024‎). One cookie (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

documentation lacking

[edit]

what is purpose of predecessor/sucessor parameters? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my humble opinion their sole purpose is for somebody to make their mark by adding them. They are not infobox-level factoids and should not be in there. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Status

[edit]

I'm looking into using WP:AWB to speed up the replacement of the old infobox system with this new template, but I see a problem. The old Template:Infobox aircraft type includes a "status" parameter, but I see no clear equivalent in the new infobox. Would anyone be opposed to adding a "status" parameter to this template? - ZLEA T\C 00:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this template should definitely include that parameter. More broadly, the place where the whole replacement project slipped onto the back burner was around the degree to which it made sense to lump all 4 quite different templates together. But to update this template to just accommodate everything in the "Type" template (and nothing else) would be uncontentious (I think). --Rlandmann (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It took me a while to get around to it, but I finally added the status parameter to the infobox. There are quite a few other changes I would make, too. Perhaps most importantly, I would split the "owners" and "primary user/more users" parameters into their own separate labels. Right now, they are labeled together under "Management", which is such a bizarre way to list the primary users of aircraft, especially military aircraft. - ZLEA T\C 00:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have split the parameters. This should also make it easier to swap the infoboxes using AWB. - ZLEA T\C 01:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

add "Operational range" parameter due to other vehicle infoboxes

[edit]

Other vehicle infoboxes (all sorts of cars, ships and even landing craft) all have the "Operational range" paramenter. Please add this parameter aswell so that all readers who visit many vehicle pages and are used to see range information in the top right infobox can quickly access that information instead of having to scroll all the way to the Specifications section in Contents list of aircraft articles (which can be huge, like the 234 Kilobytes huge Concorde article...) and clicking on that. D4n2016 (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The aircraft project consensus is to have a basic infobox and a separate specifications section. Many of the motor vehicle infoboxes are longer than the text in the article, Triumph Trophy is an example. Readers can easily access the specification sections by clicking the link provided in the table of contents which appears automatically in articles with more than four sections (unless it has been deliberately suppressed). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be better to declutter the other vehicle infoboxes by removing their specification parameters entirely and including them in the article body. Infoboxes are supposed to summarize article contents, and are not supposed to include detailed lists of technical data. - ZLEA T\C 20:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_aircraft&oldid=1251376828"