This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The most common usage for specifying the "alt" parameters of this template is to specify the same parameter as main in a different unit. Not infrequently, the unit conversion for the parameter is incorrect. Example 850 km/h is approx 530 mph, but one aircraft page had:
|max speed main= 850 km/h |max speed alt= 600 mph
A better option would be to remove the "main" and "alt" versions of the same parameter, keep just one and use Template:convert, which will automatically yield the same result and avoid good-faith mistakes:
|max speed = {{convert|850|km/h|mph|abbr=on}}
850 km/h (530 mph) This will keep good-faith authors from shooting themselves in the foot. User:skcpublic ( talk) 02:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
|max speed main= 850 km/h |max speed alt ()= {{convert|850|km/h|mph|disp=output only}}
This will give Max speed 850 km/h (530 mph)
Peter Horn
User talk
18:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
When a user selects the rotor switch while filling in the specifications, any alternate use of the propeller descriptions and dimensions should either be disabled, since the rotors are the wings of the helicopter, or partially allowed with a rotor heading rather than the current propeller heading. -- Born2flie ( talk) 14:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I saw a merge tag on {{Tl|Aerospecs}}, and a post on its talkpage suggests that this {{Tl|Aircraft specifications}} template is a more modern version of that one. Is that true? And if so, would it make sense to merge them? Debresser ( talk) 05:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello. There's a problem with the "specifications" section ("Performance when fitted with Alfa Romeo 125 engines" subsection) of this article and i don't know how to fix it. I know nothing about templates and I thought I'd better report it here. -- 92.154.149.104 ( talk) 08:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
On Ford Trimotor page, max takeoff weight alt appears as "(6,120 kg" without closing bracket. I can't see whether the error is in the template or in Trimotor page ")" should be added. -- Мирослав Ћика ( talk) 14:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
In my professional capacity, recently I have had to do research on wheel track dimensions for various aircraft, and found the data remarkably difficult to find, and certainly not at Wikipedia.
I suggest that these dimensions would be a valuable and important set of parameters to add to this template. This also implies some standard measure, and I would suggest "Main wheels centre track width" (centre-to-centre) rather than "Main wheels outer wall track width", as the wheel pivots on the centre (someone with better knowledge may argue differently).
A second dimension is the distance from the main wheels to the tricycle nosewheel or rear castor wheel/skid. This also implies one dimension is determinable. On many aircraft, where there is one main wheel only, or two side-by-side, this obvious; where there is a cluster of main wheels then this is more difficult. I suggest that this dimension be from the "Main gear oleo strut to nosewheel or tailwheel/skid".
Another and related dimension is "Minimum turning circle", that can be the "wheel turning circle (minimum)", but probably ought to be also expressed as "wingtip turning circle (minimum)".
I no longer have my pilot license, so I would welcome someone with more (current) knowledge than me assisting on these matters. I will also be copying this request to the other spec template talk page.- Peter Ellis - Talk 01:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Why not use template:convert instead of
| length main = 4.5 m | length alt () = 14.6 ft
Eg
| length = {{convert|4.5|m|ftin|abbr=on}} | length = {{convert|14|ft|9|in|m|1|abbr=on}} if source gives imperial.
Peter Horn User talk 01:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 13:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
| length main = 4.5 m | length alt () = '''{{convert|4.5|m|ft|1|disp=output only}}'''
The visual result is
Peter Horn User talk 18:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 18:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
In
Aero Spacelines Super Guppy the "loading *" parameter displays as "wing loading" - Could it display as "max wing loading" ie wing loading at max takeoff weight ?
Also it might be useful to add "max fuel load" and/or say if 'useful load' = max (payload + fuel load) ? -
Rod57 (
talk)
23:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
This name of this parameter listed under Aircraft specifications - General characteristics should be changed to either "typical mission weight" or "notional mission weight" as the current name is aeronautically incorrect and makes no sense logically. The definition for this parameter states that it is: "The weight of the aircraft when loaded for a 'typical' mission. This statistic is cited for almost any aircraft, but it is relatively arbitrary, so only use statistics given in sources." [Italics mine.] Many wiki aircraft articles posit this stat (however, most without any reference citaion for it), but even when cited, upon checking numerous sources cited (even in the few instances where they are) the stat is usually not present in the source, or is clearly stated to be a "typical" mission weight. This "stat" is confusing and so highly subjective as to be practically meaningless and useless
There are several problems evident here. The first problem is that the term "loaded weight" is not a commonly accepted or standardized aircraft parameter. It is defined on the template page as "relatively arbitrary", and it only has any real use for pilots, weapons systems officers, flight engineers, loadmasters, logistics and operations planners, transportation and air support coordinators, embarkation and weapons loading specialists, et al. In other words, highly trained and skilled specialists with access to aircraft operating manuals and performance charts, airfield information, and meteorlogical data, etc., who must use this information to plan, coordinate, and effect complex aviation missions. It is sufficient for the overwhelming majority of general information readers to have presented to them "empty weight/basic operating weight", "maximum fuel capacity/load", "maximum cargo/payload"' and "maximum gross takeoff weight". When it comes to aircraft weight specs, the average aviation "lay reader" is perhaps primarily interested in how much weight (cargo or weapons) lifting and total fuel capacity (quantity and weight) the aircraft possess. With the other weights provided these questions are answered.
Even to present a parameter named "typical" or "mission" weight is highly subjective as this "relatively arbitrary" parameter is dependent upon many, many factors. Among these factors are the purpose or objective of the mission, which will inform as to the number (and possibly type) of crewmembers, type and quantity of weapons or other special mission equipment and/or weight of cargo and/or number of troops/paratroops/liter casualties/passengers to be transported, required distance and altitude to be flown and/or endurance required. Then there are the many physical and environmental factors involved such as runway weight limits, takeoff and landing runway elevation, runway lengths, runway (and sometimes even taxiway and ramp/apron weight limits), ambient temperature, dew point/humidity and field elevation barometric pressure (density altitude), surface winds and crosswind components that limit the aircraft's performance.
This is a little too much "inside baseball" for non-aviation professionals, and for those who need and use this information wikipedia would not be a source for their data. Can someone either amend the template to either change "loaded weight" to "typical" or "notional" "mission weight" or perhaps better, just delete this widely variable and highly subjective "statistic" from the template. Thanks for your consideration. CobraDragoon ( talk) 14:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The Performance section header is shown even if empty, see Tupolev Tu-95LAL. 217.248.3.162 ( talk) 21:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I LOVE the convert function. Great idea. The important part of the world isn't going to be using metric for a good long while, so we're going to need this function. My 54C bike has a 120 stem, so obviously my handlebar stem is over twice as long as my top tube. Unless you know a lot about the domain that seems perfectly reasonable, and all it takes is an error of omission or one wrong letter to induce that error. Not a fan of metric. Be that as it may, could the calculation of Aspect Ratio be automated so long as wing length and wing area are available? Solidpoint ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
This template appears to be causing directly a number of the errors in this category.
Is there a person willing to troubleshoot? :D -- Izno ( talk) 14:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
</ul>
tags. I don't know why we need them since there are no <ul>
tags.
Frietjes (
talk)
16:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)</ul>
tags.
Frietjes (
talk)
16:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I know that very few ornithopters (aircraft that use flapping-wing flight) exist—including only one that has successfully flown under their original intended power source—but there doesn't seem to be any specifications unique for them. Do you think that these should be included? I'm no expert in ornithopter design, but figures like maximum wing flex angle in each axis, maximum wing angle of attack, and wing flap frequency (analogous to RPM in fixed-wing or rotor aircraft) could be useful. If anyone out there has worked on ornithopters (ornithopter UAVs seem more prevalent, probably due to the practical size limitations of flapping-wing flight) and knows what specifications are cited, please come out of the shadows. Grant Exploit ( talk) 05:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
General Atomics MQ-1 Predator#Armament: In "* 2 × AGM-114 Hellfire (MQ-1B)" the asterisk isn't being rendered as a bullet. In addition there is this: "Hardpoints: 2 and provisions to carry combinations of:" (the two spaces are sic). — DocWatson42 ( talk) 05:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
For example (Fighting Falcon):
fuel-usage = 5,290 pounds per hour cruising-speed = 480 knots fuel-economy = 0.7 mpg
- Inowen ( nlfte) 00:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to [[:Template:Aircraft specifications]] has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
request addition of:
root chord
tip chord
dihedral
wing sweep
as parameters below airfoil and above empty weight main. This allows for addition of critical information for flight performance specifications to be included in standard template. I tested this code out in the sandbox.
}} JKBodylski ( talk) 03:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to [[:Template:Aircraft specifications]] has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The current link '''[[Stall (fluid mechanics)#Stall speed|Stall speed]]:'''
is out of date, since the Stall article title and the Stall speed section title have both changed. To fix that, and prevent any future similar issues, the link should simply be '''[[Stall speed]]:'''
, i.e. it should more naturally take advantage of redirects per
WP:NOPIPE.
I've made the change in the sandbox (but note that the last sandbox revision was badly out of date, so a diff on the last sandbox revision will not be very meaningful). --
Deeday-UK (
talk)
12:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Currently the "maximum speed" or maxspeed parameter of the template is ambiguous. There are a number of maximum speeds that an aircraft can have including never exceed speed, maximum cruise speed. For clarity it may be worthwhile for the maxspeed parameter to be labelled "Maximum Cruise Speed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.135.241 ( talk) 14:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm getting a strong wiff of "only created for the small group in the know" here.
Please make it easier for regular wikipedians to use and modify these aircraft info templates. CapnZapp ( talk) 10:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
If you do not understand how to use this template, please ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft
ABSOLUTELY NOT. That would mean that our ability to edit articles ourselves would be compromised, having to go through a gateway process (waiting for help; possibly getting our ideas shot down). It is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to make something as simple as an aircarft info box equally simple to edit. It is unacceptable to replace proper documentation (and easily usable templates in the first place) with a request to first go through other editors. This is not an instance of "technical competence is assumed" - it's just an infobox. CapnZapp ( talk) 10:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Discussion about deprecation of this template was moved to the topic Deprecation of this template. -- Pipetricker ( talk) 15:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
This template isn't marked with Template:Deprecated template. Where is it said that it should be deprecated? -- Pipetricker ( talk) 13:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
<noinclude>{{Deprecated|<nowiki>Aircraft specifications|Aircraft specs|date=March 2019}}</nowiki>
I have added the tag to the page. MilborneOne ( talk) 14:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Just double checking here - {{tl|Aerospecs}} and {{tl|Aircraft specifications}} are replaced by {{tl|Aircraft specs}} right? -- Gonnym ( talk) 11:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Adding this tag causes many style breaks on the pages I'm seeing. Please fix. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 18:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
{{Tfm/dated}}
call in <div style="overflow:hidden">...</div>
would fix that.There's a discussion concerning the implementation of the merger of this template at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Template:Aircraft specs merger bot -- Trialpears ( talk) 15:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I've done around a thousand so far. Any feedback?-- Petebutt ( talk) 10:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
When the Armament header has to appear, this template generates
stripped tag lint errors for </ul>
. Over two edits, I moved a </ul>
, which removed another lint error, but this is a bit difficult for me, so I'd ask the authors or other experts to work on this.
Junkers EF 132 has 2 stripped </ul>
tags.
BAE Systems Hawk has 1 stripped </ul>
tag.
Heinkel He 274 has 2 stripped </ul>
tags.
Heinkel He 277 has 1 stripped </ul>
tag. —
Anomalocaris (
talk)
01:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The most common usage for specifying the "alt" parameters of this template is to specify the same parameter as main in a different unit. Not infrequently, the unit conversion for the parameter is incorrect. Example 850 km/h is approx 530 mph, but one aircraft page had:
|max speed main= 850 km/h |max speed alt= 600 mph
A better option would be to remove the "main" and "alt" versions of the same parameter, keep just one and use Template:convert, which will automatically yield the same result and avoid good-faith mistakes:
|max speed = {{convert|850|km/h|mph|abbr=on}}
850 km/h (530 mph) This will keep good-faith authors from shooting themselves in the foot. User:skcpublic ( talk) 02:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
|max speed main= 850 km/h |max speed alt ()= {{convert|850|km/h|mph|disp=output only}}
This will give Max speed 850 km/h (530 mph)
Peter Horn
User talk
18:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
When a user selects the rotor switch while filling in the specifications, any alternate use of the propeller descriptions and dimensions should either be disabled, since the rotors are the wings of the helicopter, or partially allowed with a rotor heading rather than the current propeller heading. -- Born2flie ( talk) 14:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I saw a merge tag on {{Tl|Aerospecs}}, and a post on its talkpage suggests that this {{Tl|Aircraft specifications}} template is a more modern version of that one. Is that true? And if so, would it make sense to merge them? Debresser ( talk) 05:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello. There's a problem with the "specifications" section ("Performance when fitted with Alfa Romeo 125 engines" subsection) of this article and i don't know how to fix it. I know nothing about templates and I thought I'd better report it here. -- 92.154.149.104 ( talk) 08:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
On Ford Trimotor page, max takeoff weight alt appears as "(6,120 kg" without closing bracket. I can't see whether the error is in the template or in Trimotor page ")" should be added. -- Мирослав Ћика ( talk) 14:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
In my professional capacity, recently I have had to do research on wheel track dimensions for various aircraft, and found the data remarkably difficult to find, and certainly not at Wikipedia.
I suggest that these dimensions would be a valuable and important set of parameters to add to this template. This also implies some standard measure, and I would suggest "Main wheels centre track width" (centre-to-centre) rather than "Main wheels outer wall track width", as the wheel pivots on the centre (someone with better knowledge may argue differently).
A second dimension is the distance from the main wheels to the tricycle nosewheel or rear castor wheel/skid. This also implies one dimension is determinable. On many aircraft, where there is one main wheel only, or two side-by-side, this obvious; where there is a cluster of main wheels then this is more difficult. I suggest that this dimension be from the "Main gear oleo strut to nosewheel or tailwheel/skid".
Another and related dimension is "Minimum turning circle", that can be the "wheel turning circle (minimum)", but probably ought to be also expressed as "wingtip turning circle (minimum)".
I no longer have my pilot license, so I would welcome someone with more (current) knowledge than me assisting on these matters. I will also be copying this request to the other spec template talk page.- Peter Ellis - Talk 01:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Why not use template:convert instead of
| length main = 4.5 m | length alt () = 14.6 ft
Eg
| length = {{convert|4.5|m|ftin|abbr=on}} | length = {{convert|14|ft|9|in|m|1|abbr=on}} if source gives imperial.
Peter Horn User talk 01:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 13:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
| length main = 4.5 m | length alt () = '''{{convert|4.5|m|ft|1|disp=output only}}'''
The visual result is
Peter Horn User talk 18:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 18:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
In
Aero Spacelines Super Guppy the "loading *" parameter displays as "wing loading" - Could it display as "max wing loading" ie wing loading at max takeoff weight ?
Also it might be useful to add "max fuel load" and/or say if 'useful load' = max (payload + fuel load) ? -
Rod57 (
talk)
23:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
This name of this parameter listed under Aircraft specifications - General characteristics should be changed to either "typical mission weight" or "notional mission weight" as the current name is aeronautically incorrect and makes no sense logically. The definition for this parameter states that it is: "The weight of the aircraft when loaded for a 'typical' mission. This statistic is cited for almost any aircraft, but it is relatively arbitrary, so only use statistics given in sources." [Italics mine.] Many wiki aircraft articles posit this stat (however, most without any reference citaion for it), but even when cited, upon checking numerous sources cited (even in the few instances where they are) the stat is usually not present in the source, or is clearly stated to be a "typical" mission weight. This "stat" is confusing and so highly subjective as to be practically meaningless and useless
There are several problems evident here. The first problem is that the term "loaded weight" is not a commonly accepted or standardized aircraft parameter. It is defined on the template page as "relatively arbitrary", and it only has any real use for pilots, weapons systems officers, flight engineers, loadmasters, logistics and operations planners, transportation and air support coordinators, embarkation and weapons loading specialists, et al. In other words, highly trained and skilled specialists with access to aircraft operating manuals and performance charts, airfield information, and meteorlogical data, etc., who must use this information to plan, coordinate, and effect complex aviation missions. It is sufficient for the overwhelming majority of general information readers to have presented to them "empty weight/basic operating weight", "maximum fuel capacity/load", "maximum cargo/payload"' and "maximum gross takeoff weight". When it comes to aircraft weight specs, the average aviation "lay reader" is perhaps primarily interested in how much weight (cargo or weapons) lifting and total fuel capacity (quantity and weight) the aircraft possess. With the other weights provided these questions are answered.
Even to present a parameter named "typical" or "mission" weight is highly subjective as this "relatively arbitrary" parameter is dependent upon many, many factors. Among these factors are the purpose or objective of the mission, which will inform as to the number (and possibly type) of crewmembers, type and quantity of weapons or other special mission equipment and/or weight of cargo and/or number of troops/paratroops/liter casualties/passengers to be transported, required distance and altitude to be flown and/or endurance required. Then there are the many physical and environmental factors involved such as runway weight limits, takeoff and landing runway elevation, runway lengths, runway (and sometimes even taxiway and ramp/apron weight limits), ambient temperature, dew point/humidity and field elevation barometric pressure (density altitude), surface winds and crosswind components that limit the aircraft's performance.
This is a little too much "inside baseball" for non-aviation professionals, and for those who need and use this information wikipedia would not be a source for their data. Can someone either amend the template to either change "loaded weight" to "typical" or "notional" "mission weight" or perhaps better, just delete this widely variable and highly subjective "statistic" from the template. Thanks for your consideration. CobraDragoon ( talk) 14:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The Performance section header is shown even if empty, see Tupolev Tu-95LAL. 217.248.3.162 ( talk) 21:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I LOVE the convert function. Great idea. The important part of the world isn't going to be using metric for a good long while, so we're going to need this function. My 54C bike has a 120 stem, so obviously my handlebar stem is over twice as long as my top tube. Unless you know a lot about the domain that seems perfectly reasonable, and all it takes is an error of omission or one wrong letter to induce that error. Not a fan of metric. Be that as it may, could the calculation of Aspect Ratio be automated so long as wing length and wing area are available? Solidpoint ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
This template appears to be causing directly a number of the errors in this category.
Is there a person willing to troubleshoot? :D -- Izno ( talk) 14:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
</ul>
tags. I don't know why we need them since there are no <ul>
tags.
Frietjes (
talk)
16:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)</ul>
tags.
Frietjes (
talk)
16:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I know that very few ornithopters (aircraft that use flapping-wing flight) exist—including only one that has successfully flown under their original intended power source—but there doesn't seem to be any specifications unique for them. Do you think that these should be included? I'm no expert in ornithopter design, but figures like maximum wing flex angle in each axis, maximum wing angle of attack, and wing flap frequency (analogous to RPM in fixed-wing or rotor aircraft) could be useful. If anyone out there has worked on ornithopters (ornithopter UAVs seem more prevalent, probably due to the practical size limitations of flapping-wing flight) and knows what specifications are cited, please come out of the shadows. Grant Exploit ( talk) 05:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
General Atomics MQ-1 Predator#Armament: In "* 2 × AGM-114 Hellfire (MQ-1B)" the asterisk isn't being rendered as a bullet. In addition there is this: "Hardpoints: 2 and provisions to carry combinations of:" (the two spaces are sic). — DocWatson42 ( talk) 05:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
For example (Fighting Falcon):
fuel-usage = 5,290 pounds per hour cruising-speed = 480 knots fuel-economy = 0.7 mpg
- Inowen ( nlfte) 00:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to [[:Template:Aircraft specifications]] has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
request addition of:
root chord
tip chord
dihedral
wing sweep
as parameters below airfoil and above empty weight main. This allows for addition of critical information for flight performance specifications to be included in standard template. I tested this code out in the sandbox.
}} JKBodylski ( talk) 03:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to [[:Template:Aircraft specifications]] has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The current link '''[[Stall (fluid mechanics)#Stall speed|Stall speed]]:'''
is out of date, since the Stall article title and the Stall speed section title have both changed. To fix that, and prevent any future similar issues, the link should simply be '''[[Stall speed]]:'''
, i.e. it should more naturally take advantage of redirects per
WP:NOPIPE.
I've made the change in the sandbox (but note that the last sandbox revision was badly out of date, so a diff on the last sandbox revision will not be very meaningful). --
Deeday-UK (
talk)
12:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Currently the "maximum speed" or maxspeed parameter of the template is ambiguous. There are a number of maximum speeds that an aircraft can have including never exceed speed, maximum cruise speed. For clarity it may be worthwhile for the maxspeed parameter to be labelled "Maximum Cruise Speed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.135.241 ( talk) 14:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm getting a strong wiff of "only created for the small group in the know" here.
Please make it easier for regular wikipedians to use and modify these aircraft info templates. CapnZapp ( talk) 10:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
If you do not understand how to use this template, please ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft
ABSOLUTELY NOT. That would mean that our ability to edit articles ourselves would be compromised, having to go through a gateway process (waiting for help; possibly getting our ideas shot down). It is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to make something as simple as an aircarft info box equally simple to edit. It is unacceptable to replace proper documentation (and easily usable templates in the first place) with a request to first go through other editors. This is not an instance of "technical competence is assumed" - it's just an infobox. CapnZapp ( talk) 10:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Discussion about deprecation of this template was moved to the topic Deprecation of this template. -- Pipetricker ( talk) 15:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
This template isn't marked with Template:Deprecated template. Where is it said that it should be deprecated? -- Pipetricker ( talk) 13:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
<noinclude>{{Deprecated|<nowiki>Aircraft specifications|Aircraft specs|date=March 2019}}</nowiki>
I have added the tag to the page. MilborneOne ( talk) 14:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Just double checking here - {{tl|Aerospecs}} and {{tl|Aircraft specifications}} are replaced by {{tl|Aircraft specs}} right? -- Gonnym ( talk) 11:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Adding this tag causes many style breaks on the pages I'm seeing. Please fix. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 18:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
{{Tfm/dated}}
call in <div style="overflow:hidden">...</div>
would fix that.There's a discussion concerning the implementation of the merger of this template at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Template:Aircraft specs merger bot -- Trialpears ( talk) 15:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I've done around a thousand so far. Any feedback?-- Petebutt ( talk) 10:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
When the Armament header has to appear, this template generates
stripped tag lint errors for </ul>
. Over two edits, I moved a </ul>
, which removed another lint error, but this is a bit difficult for me, so I'd ask the authors or other experts to work on this.
Junkers EF 132 has 2 stripped </ul>
tags.
BAE Systems Hawk has 1 stripped </ul>
tag.
Heinkel He 274 has 2 stripped </ul>
tags.
Heinkel He 277 has 1 stripped </ul>
tag. —
Anomalocaris (
talk)
01:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)