Template talk:Infobox aircraft begin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This article 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by the aircraft project.


The examples should be beefed up with actual examples. (talk) 11:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Replaces, replaced by[edit]

Would it be worthwhile to add unrelated airframes that were flown for the same missions before and after the type in question? Hcobb (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Those are more often placed in the Comparable sections of the See Also, and usually only if there are no or few contemporaries. Unlike ships, Aircraft tend to repalce more than one type, and are sometimes relpaced by more than one type (F-4), and this could quickly get very cumbersome. - BilCat (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft name at the present time[edit]

The names of aircraft are currently displaying in a comically large point size.
Can that please be brought down a little bit? It looks silly.
Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

While the font isn't as big as you make it out to be, it is bigger than other infoboxes (see Albert Sidney Johnston, American Revolutionary War, Henry Darcy.) I don't know if there is a standard header size for infoboxes, but I'll check. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 02:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


Why does the infobox eschew any kind of dimensions whatsover? Whenever I go to look at an aircraft, my first question on looking at the photograph is 'how big is it?' for which I find the maximum takeoff weight the most useful measure. Take the Boeing 747 for example. From the infobox I get the 1967, 1976, and 1982 unit costs but I can't tell how big it is. - (talk) 06:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The WPAIR project made a diliberate decision not to include the aircraft sixe in the infobox. All such info is usually displayed in the specifications section, usually near the end of the article. - BilCat (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I understand the information is there. I don't understand why it appears at the the end of the article rather than the start. What was the basis of the WPAIR project decision? - (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Image border option[edit]

It appears that a border comes as standard with images placed in this infobox. I would like to add an option, which if specified, removed the inner (image) border when it adversely affects the display of the image. For instance at Concorde, where the aircraft is against a very pale sky that would almost merge with the infobox background, and the nose is cramped by the unnecessary inner border? Possibility of experimentation would be useful, in any case. Best, Trev M   10:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the image you mentioned on my system. I'm open to experimenting, but we need to now if it's a wide-spread problem first. You might see if you can view the image in other browsers or OSs and see if the issue remains for you. (I am veiwing on Win 7 with IE8, if that helps.) - BilCat (talk) 12:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
You can see the border using Firefox, all it would need is to remove the border declaration. Somebody really clever could make it switch in and out. Perhaps I might go away and learn some code stuff. MilborneOne (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Extended content
Standard infobox with border
Border removed (or user selected)
If you have a look at Template:Infobox aircraft begin/testcases I have added a image-border = . This lets you adjust the border size, 0 is none upwards. If it was used then all the borders would dissapear unless you had image-border=1 or higher. Problem may be the higher you could add a really big border by accident. Still not clever enough to only allow 0 or 1 MilborneOne (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I think it looks better with the border than without, especially on an image with a light background, which is why the border was added in the first place. There is adequete space between the nose tip and the border on my browser, but as above, it could be an issue on other systems/browsers. - BilCat (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I have rem,oved the examples on this page but they are atill on the test page pending any consensus on change. Dont have strong views either way. MilborneOne (talk) 11:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

....Guess what is adequate space, stylistically, comes down to individual POV, so I'll leave that one for now. I notice in the rendering above (I put the Concord example here in a toggle box– border presence in example makes not a lot of difference to visual impact), the title comes with a blue background (how come?) which would also make the proposed mod a bit pointless, if this appears in some people's rendering of the infobox. Always happy to talk about potential improvements, particularly to page layout and design. Best, Trev M   21:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"Owner" and "Operator" should be separate items[edit]

In many cases the owner and operator of a specific aircraft are not the same entity, e.g. leasing is very common in the airline industry, so there should be clearly separate entries for the owner and the operator in the infobox used for individual aircraft. Roger (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Template coding problem, edit requested[edit]

The |alt= parameter does not work. When text is entered into the |alt= field, no text displays during preview or after publication when a mouse cursor hovers over the image. Examples of articles with alt text in the infobox: Boeing 777, Airbus A300. However, alt text does display when present in other types of infobox templates (infobox automobile works, for example) suggesting the problem is related to the coding of this template, rather than my browser/computer. (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The alt text seems to be working fine. I think perhaps you are confusing alternative text with the caption. There is some explanation at WP:ALT. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
When you say alt text is "working fine" could you please describe in some detail what you mean? Other infoboxes allow readers to hover the mouse cursor over the image and the ALT text will display. That does not happen here. Does this tempate have inferior functionality by design? If so, what is the justification for the inferiority? Thank you. (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
DH 106 Comet
A jet airliner in flight
British European Airways (BEA) Comet 4B arriving at Berlin Tempelhof Airport in 1969
Not done: This template uses alt text syntax that is no different from that prescribed at WP:EIS - [[File:image|size|center|alt=alt]] and therefore if the template is given e.g. |alt=A jet airliner in flight (see right) it will be used as alt text. Please note that alt text being used as a tooltip when hovering over an image is not the design purpose of alt text: some browser vendors have chosen to implement it that way, but by no means all. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Right, confusing this with the unnamed "caption" parameter for hovering text (demonstrated here). By the way, is there a reason for the div border, rather than using the standard border parameter for images? Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

"alt" parameter changed to "image_alt"?[edit]

One of the effects of this edit by Ktr101 seems to have been to change the name of the alt parameter to image_alt. Am I reading this correctly? Because if so, I don't understand why the change was made and I'm concerned that the effect may be to prevent the documented |alt= from working as intended in existing infoboxes. Comments? Thanks. Wdchk (talk) 04:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Good point, the first article I checked Boeing 767 has "|alt=..." in its infobox. You can either ask Ktr101 (talk · contribs) to make the change, or use the request for a protected edit template. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah, that's odd. I am trying to figure out where I got the edit request from, and I most likely added that because someone asked to change it, and I just didn't question the reason for modifying that parameter. Either way, it works now! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Yes, I confirm that I now see the expected behavior. Inspecting the HTML for Boeing 767, the correct alternative text appears in the alt attribute of the <img> tag. Previously I just saw the image filename repeated in that attribute. Wdchk (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)