This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Aircraft specs template. |
|
Archives: 1 |
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Based on usage in articles the following items should be fixed/updated:
Category:Aircraft without proper specifications
There's a discussion concerning this template at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Template:Aircraft specs merger bot Of particular concern to this template is how to handle Payload and loaded weight information from {{ Aircraft specifications}} which may involve adding new fields to this template and changing the conversion system to not perform automatic convertions for units where a value is manually given. -- Trialpears ( talk) 15:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Aircraft specs/convert,
Template:Aircraft specs/eng,
Template:Aircraft specs/length,
Template:Aircraft specs/range and
Template:Aircraft specs/speed has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I've made changes to the conversion subpages Template:Aircraft specs/convert/sandbox, Template:Aircraft specs/eng/sandbox, Template:Aircraft specs/length/sandbox, Template:Aircraft specs/range/sandbox and Template:Aircraft specs/speed/sandbox which make use of extra unit parameters if supplied, instead of converting to them from another unit. This is primarily done to prevent extra unit conversions when converting instances of {{ aircraft specifications}} to this template, which reduces the precision of our values. It will also be useful for overriding the conversion when it displays the wrong amount of significant figures. See also discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Template:Aircraft specs merger bot and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 20#Template:Aerospecs.
I've tested all functionality of these templates, both new and old, and have found no problems. The testcases work and the new functionality works correctly in test conversions of {{ Aircraft specifications}}. The speed and range conversion templates seems to behave weirdly with the parenthesis not displaying in the same way as the other templates, so I have made the formatting consistent with the other templates. If their current formatting (as seen in the test cases) were intentional I will happily switch back to that. -- Trialpears ( talk) 12:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Trialpears: Some articles are in Category:Convert errors. Sorry I don't have time at the moment to investigate the recent changes but I'm hoping someone will know how to handle the issue. No problem—I know it's hard to predict how templates are used and it doesn't matter if the articles are imperfect for a day or two while the common factors are found. I'll try to return in a few hours and see if some trick with convert might help. Johnuniq ( talk) 05:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Aircraft specs/length and
Template:Aircraft specs/eng has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
ceiling m=3100
gives convert error Value "outside" must be a number.ceiling m=5500
gives convert error Value "service" must be a number.This
edit request to
Template:Aircraft specs/speed has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Currently, in met all the speed parameters show 'km' in stead of 'km/h', which is not correct. I have tried in a sandbox edit but I am obviouslynot doing what is needed. Can someone help? Petebutt ( talk) 16:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Aircraft specs/range and
Template:Aircraft specs/eng has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
While we're here I've found the worst bug yet: Hiding the range if using kts as the prime unit since it was looking nmi (I set up my testcases under the same incorrect assumption). Fix in sandbox. -- Trialpears ( talk) 13:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
For
Cierva C.6#Specifications (C.6) and all others, Powerplant seems strange. It would be difficult to fit a
powerplant into any airplane. Template:Aircraft specs/doc#engines. Could it be possible to change the output of "|eng name=
" – to
engine.
Peter Horn
User talk
02:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I found that I had to bring my own formatting when adding a |more
entry. If that's true, and accepted as good practice, then it might be worth mentioning in the docs. In other words, just saying
|more general=Cup holders: 2
does not work; you have to say something like
|more general=<br> *'''Cup holders:''' 3<br> *'''Fog lights:''' 2
to get it to render correctly. (It was the Ford Trimotor article for me, but I think it would apply in general.) Thanks! 73.3.56.178 ( talk) 05:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
This is how the "Performance" sub-section now appears at
Junkers Ju 390 (for me anyway):
Performanceat [sic] 6,200 m (20,340 ft)at [sic] 2,500 m (8,200 ft)
Range: 8,000 km (4,970 mi, 4,320 nmi) Ju 390 V1 with 10,000 kg (22,046 lb) payload and 34,096 l (9,007 US gal; 7,500 imp gal) fuel at 330 km/h (210 mph; 180 kn) and 2,000 m (6,500 ft)
Combat range: 9,704 km (6,030 mi, 5,240 nmi) (reconnaissance mission)
Combat range (bomber mission): 9,254 km (5,750 mi; 4,997 nmi) with 1,930 kg (4,255 lb) bomb load
In addition, the following lines of actual template data are invisible in the article itself:
|max speed km/h=505
|max speed note=at {{cvt|20340|ft|order=flip}}
|cruise speed km/h=357
|cruise speed note=at {{cvt|8200|ft|order=flip}}
I haven't noticed this particular issue in any other articles. The ways of templates are often a mystery me, but I really have no idea why:
I'm guessing that there is either a strange bug in the coding of the template itself and/or something about the way this data has been entered?
(Also posted at
Talk:Junkers Ju 390.)
Grant | Talk 03:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The thrust and afterburner thrust don't format like previous templates. Rather than bulleted below the engine you get a (rambling) part sentence. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 15:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Should prop blade number really be required to display any propeller information? I think it should be made optional. -- Trialpears ( talk) 12:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I've been working on converting {{ Aerospecs}} to {{ Aircraft specs}} and most of the remaining cases ( 455 of them) are using a Wing profile parameter. I think this should be added here but want to make sure there is consensus before doing so. -- Trialpears ( talk) 21:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
In the GAF Jindivik article the current converted metric dimensions are displaying up to five decimal places, this is false precision, it is trying to convert 1/8 inch steps which in itself is daft but if that's what the source says then it has to be.
I am not authorised to edit this template otherwise I would do it myself. I recommend a review of all the decimal place settings throughout the template for consistency and would further recommend limiting the number of decimal places to two for all parameters unless there is a good case to do otherwise. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
The conversion is using {{
convert}}. I haven't examined
Template:Aircraft specs/convert but convert gives the following results ({{
cvt}} is convert with |abbr=on
):
{{cvt|40|ft|0.125|in}}
→ 40 ft 0.125 in (12.19518 m){{cvt|40|ft|1/8|in}}
→ 40 ft 1⁄8 in (12.195 m){{cvt|1/16|in|m|5}}
→ 1⁄16 in (0.00159 m){{cvt|1/16|in|m|sigfig=3}}
→ 1⁄16 in (0.00159 m)When convert is given a length of 40 feet and 1/8 inch, it calculates the output precision needed to show ±1⁄16 inch. If the inches is 0.125, the precision is ±0.0005 m with a bit extra that generally works out well, although not in this case. At any rate, please see
this edit at
Grumman TBF Avenger. That shows 12.195 m which is a technically correct precision but possibly more than wanted. To get 12.2 m, the template would need |sigfig=3
but that's tricky because it would always give 3 significant figures which might not be appropriate in some cases.
Johnuniq (
talk)
22:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
|max speed mach= doesn't seem to work when |max speed note= is used. Nigel Ish ( talk) 19:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Is there an established convention on dealing with masses for electric aircraft? IMO it should be: MTOW (or gross weight), comprising payload, fuel capacity gives battery details, then empty weight is MTOW - payload - battery. However, I've seen a few articles now which give empty weight including batteries. Is there an established convention, and if not, I propose the above. GEbb4 ( talk) 21:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I think I know a solution, but you don't want me to help. -- 84.189.92.195 ( talk) 23:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The swept span displays as lower wingspan - this is not performing as required - see General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark. Nigel Ish ( talk) 21:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Put spaces around the × output from rot number consistent with {{aircraft specs/eng}}. 148.252.129.49 ( talk) 13:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
I am not able to get the "sigfig" parameters to work correctly, at least with certain spec parameters, e.g. "empty weight" and "max takeoff weight". I have created a small example here. The empty weight should have only one significant figure and the max takeoff weight should have 8 significant figures. But it looks like in both cases the converted values have 6 significant figures:
General characteristics
Performance
Could somebody tell me what I did wrong? Spike ( talk) 17:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Gross weight: 55,000 lb (24,948 kg) Max takeoff weight: 68,000 lb (30,844 kg)" - it looks like the weight conversions are screwed up. IMHO adding sig fig option because one or two articles had lengths "accurate" to a fraction of an inch causing problems rather than the obvious answer of rounding the input to nearest inch was a bad move and should be undone. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 20:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
The manual of style states not to use bold in situations like this. Is there a specific reason it's used? If not, I would suggest that it be removed. Any input is appreciated. Regards, DesertPipeline ( talk) 18:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
;
) which we would otherwise have to fall back on. I'd respectfully advise that any serious suggestion for removal should be accompanied by a proposed replacement formatting with associated markup code known to meet accessibility guidelines, plus a rationale as to why it helps the visiting reader. But there are probably better things to be getting on with. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
20:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
You could consider making this template a table instead of a bulleted list. See the collapsed box for an example of how this would look. To save vertical space, perhaps each table can be positioned in the same place horizontally, each to the right of the last. Regards, DesertPipeline ( talk) 14:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Example of this template using a table
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Example of side-by-side tables
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
I'm confused as bolding is used in the same way on the main page, particularly the 'Other areas of Wikipedia' section, and infoboxes use a bolded parameter/fact label followed by entries in plain text for each line? Bolding parameter descriptions is used by the sources often used in these sections, Flight International, Janes and the Observer's Books series. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Example of unadorned tables
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Data from Source citation/s here
|
Just to clear up the basics, the suggestion is to rework the template so that it creates tables instead of bulleted lists. As already pointed out, no change to the articles is being proposed.
@
DesertPipeline: I cannot recall any significant publisher who uses cell borders for such tables. Although pretty background colours are sometimes used, that is purely for bling, they have no useful function and we fight an eternal battle against such bling artists; I would not want to encourage them. Also, why add unnecessary markup? The table headings in my example are bolded because they are formatted as table heading cells, using the !
(pling) wikitext markup instead of |
(pipe). They could be formatted as table titles or even captions, if preferred, but they do need some flag for the accessibility tools to hook onto. Personally I would stick to the default font size for whatever element is chosen, however if others prefer a larger size that is fine. Per
MOS:FONTSIZE the current use of
Template:Big is currently used to give a 120% enlargement. Spacing between elements can easily be adjusted using CSS, my example is just quick-and-dirty template output to demonstrate the principle. Whether the "Data from" cites are positioned above or below applies to whatever format we adopt, and is an independent issue.
<big>...</big>
should in any case be changed to a percentage
But I agree with GraemeLeggett that we would need to prove the concept with a functional prototype template before the rest of this Project would (even should) be willing to take such a proposal seriously. Is the risk of their turning it down, or of ZLEA's problems being intractable, really worth the hassle?
— Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 09:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC) [corrected 10:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)]
(Putting my comment here as I'm making a general reply) The suggestion to discuss the bold issue on the MOS talk page is sensible. The best idea would be to get conclusive data on whether bolding in lists like this (and whatever other contexts) actually helps readers. Regarding everything else said, I think it's getting a bit too complex for me to participate in this particular discussion – specifically, parts about general statistics for aircraft in a table. I'm not familiar enough with the subject to provide useful input. I hope that others can continue this discussion (possibly somewhere other than this talk page) and determine whether it should be implemented. Regards, DesertPipeline ( talk) 14:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I would like to point out that the problem with my table template is known, but I have no idea how to fix it. Here is how it would transclude with all parameters filled (note that I did not add all the parameters from the original template, and I left out units and conversions in these examples):
Transclusion with all parameters filled
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
{{Aircraft specs |prime units? = met |genhide = no |crew = yes |capacity = 3.14159265359 |length = long |span = 0 |upper span = +0 |mid span = ±0 |lower span = -0 |swept = 42 |dia = 2r |width = wide |height = high }} Transcludes as: {| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center" !colspan="2"| General characteristics |- ! Crew | yes |- ! Capacity | 3.14159265359 |- ! Length | long |- ! Wingspan | 0 |- ! Upper wingspan | +0 |- ! Mid wingspan | ±0 |- ! Lower wingspan | -0 |- ! Swept wingspan | 42 |- ! Diameter | 2r |- ! Width | wide |- ! Height | high |} Resulting in:
|
Since the template is designed to be universal for all aircraft, no aircraft will use all parameters. Unused parameters clutter up the template, so it is necessary to hide them with parser functions. However, parser functions seem to act like invisible characters (which I will call "phantom parser functions") when they are told to display nothing, meaning that the residual line breaks are not ignored when rendering the page:
Transclusion with some parameters blank
| ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
{{Aircraft specs |prime units? = met |genhide = no |crew = yes |capacity = 3.14159265359 |length = long |span = 0 |upper span = |mid span = |lower span = |swept = 42 |dia = |width = |height = high }} Transcludes as: {| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center" !colspan="2"| General characteristics |- ! Crew | yes |- ! Capacity | 3.14159265359 |- ! Length | long |- ! Wingspan | 0 (phantom parser function) (phantom parser function) (phantom parser function) |- ! Swept wingspan | 42 (phantom parser function) (phantom parser function) |- ! Height | high |} Resulting in:
|
If we can get around this problem, then creating a table format specs template should be easy. - ZLEA T\ C 00:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
|- ! Wingspan | 0(phantom parser function)(phantom parser function)(phantom parser function) |- ! Swept wingspan | 42(phantom parser function)(phantom parser function) |-
|- ! Wingspan | 0(phantom parser function)(phantom parser function)(phantom parser function) |- ! Swept wingspan | 42(phantom parser function)(phantom parser function) |-
Update: I am making good progress in my sandbox. For my current state of rendering and other information, see my aircraft user page. Salient points: I have needed three different ways to render table code, depending on where it sits in the pile of spaghetti. There is a second template, specially for the engine data, invoked only by the main template and hidden at Template:Aircraft specs/eng; I will be getting into that next. No showstoppers so far. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 11:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
That went easier than I expected. Here is an example in my new table format. It may be compared to the current live version here. What do folks think? If it seems to be on the right lines, I'll move it to the proper sandbox so it can be properly tested — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 14:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Specifications (fake pseudoheading)
References
But what I just described is a major programme of work and not worth taking further unless there is a clear project consensus for moving to this table-based format. I do not see that consensus emerging any time before a certain hot place freezes over. So as far as my proposal is concerned, it is game over. Thanks to all who contributed, if nothing else we have learned something which may help others down the line. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 15:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
I also prefer the current format, and don't see any need to change it. However, I'd support a trial on several high-profile articles to see if we get any reader feedback, positive or negative. If the readers overwhelmingly love it, or if there's little negative feedback, then I'd support a full rollout. BilCat ( talk) 20:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
One other question: How is this going to look on Mobile format? I don't use it, so I have no idea. BilCat ( talk) 20:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
I have incorporated the easy bits from the above comments, but there remain issues with them:
Styling is reverted to better match the current. The problem is that the section pseudoheadings are indistinguishable from the real level 3 headings, and I find that unacceptable. A halfway house is to make them the same size as the item headers, but that also looks horrible. The lack of a border further compounds the mess; it would at least box the thing off from the real article subheadings. Getting rid of the bolded first column solved all that, and is more in line with reputable publishing practice.
Indented and multi-line hardpoint parameters are provisionally addressed. I can adjust the indent as required. User-entered lists may still show various quirks, for this and the avionics, but creating a clean-up bot is beyond my comfort zone. But is it worth pursuing that cleanup bot?
For the mobile view, the standard skin has a menu along the very bottom of the page, with a "Mobile view" option.
— Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 09:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Specifications (fake pseudoheading)
References
Adding the image to the table can help ensure that it is displayed consistently while reducing coding and improving accessibility. - NiD.29 ( talk) 18:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Greetings and felicitations. In "with a capacity of {{{hardpoint capacity}}}," please add a space at the end, after the comma. Reason: Currently Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II#Specifications (A-10C) includes "with a capacity of 16,000 lb (7,260 kg),with provisions to carry combinations of: " [ sic]. Adding a space after the comma (by whatever means are reasonable) will alleviate this problem. — DocWatson42 ( talk) 15:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC) DocWatson42 ( talk) 15:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Done. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 20:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
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.
The following example fails to show up.
{{Aircraft specs
|max takeoff weight kg=15
|max speed kmh=150
|endurance=16 hours
|combat range km=140
|ferry range km=600
|ceiling m=5000
|eng1 type=1 stroke [[piston engine]]
|eng1 number=1
|eng1 hp=1
|eng1 name=SAITO FA-62B, JAPAN
|eng1 note=(fuel - gasoline A-95)
|more general=
* '''Payload:''' {{convert|6|kg|lbs|abbr=on}}
* '''Launch method''': a folding catapult platform
* '''Landing method''': parachute recovery
* '''Max. wind speed at the start''': 10 m/s
* '''Operational temperature range''': −30 to +40 °C
}}
General characteristics
Performance
{{Aircraft specs
|prime units?=met
|max takeoff weight kg=15
|max speed kmh=150
|endurance=16 hours
|combat range km=140
|ferry range km=600
|ceiling m=5000
|eng1 type=1 stroke [[piston engine]]
|eng1 number=1
|eng1 hp=1
|eng1 name=SAITO FA-62B, JAPAN
|eng1 note=(fuel - gasoline A-95)
|more general=
* '''Payload:''' {{convert|6|kg|lbs|abbr=on}}
* '''Launch method''': a folding catapult platform
* '''Landing method''': parachute recovery
* '''Max. wind speed at the start''': 10 m/s
* '''Operational temperature range''': −30 to +40 °C
}}
General characteristics
Performance
The current standard template for aircraft specifications includes a parameter labelled "gross weight", as well as the parameters "empty weight" and "max takeoff weight".
The definitions offered for "gross weight" and "max takeoff weight" are confusingly contradictory, namely:
"gross weight: the fully-loaded weight of the aircraft. In most cases, this will be the Maximum Take Off Weight"
and
"max takeoff weight: the max takeoff weight of the aircraft, when different from the above gross weight"
To add to the confusion "Aircraft gross weight" has its own Wikipedia page with another contradictory definition:
"gross weight (also known as the all-up weight and abbreviated AUW) is the total aircraft weight at any moment during the flight or ground operation"
In my more than 40 years in the industry, I have never encountered "gross weight" being used as anything other than a synonym for MTOW.
Wikipedia mixes the two terms indiscriminately, with some types having a "gross weight" in the specification block and others having a "max takeoff weight". A handful of types have both, with the annotation "landing" added to "gross weight" as a workaround for the fact that the current Wikipedia template, oddly, has no "max landing weight" parameter.
Type Certificates for civil aircraft invariably specify either "Max takeoff weight" (e.g. FAA) or "Max takeoff mass" (EASA) and do not contain any references to "gross weight".
My proposal is simple: If MLW is considered a desirable component of a Wikipedia aircraft specification, add "max landing weight" to the template with a rule that this is to be used where a MLW is (optionally) included in the specification.
Comments welcomed. DaveReidUK ( talk) 09:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Why are there no parameters for Take off distance, landing distance and distance to clear 15m/50ft?
For aircraft operating out of strips these are some of the most important parameters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkingscott ( talk • contribs) 01:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Some confusion has appeared on this page: Talk:Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor#Max altitude 65,000 feet
It would be helpful to include a link to Ceiling (aeronautics) for the service ceiling parameter just like we do for "thrust to weight". {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 11:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello airplane folks. I mostly write about cars but not exclusively. One issue I have noticed is that all (as far as I can tell) non-English speaking countries use metric horsepower, which is the equivalent of 735 watts rather than the 746 watt of an imperial or customary horsepower. This goes for Germany, France, Japan, and everyone else that I have been able to determine. In some articles I see that this is indeed taken into account, at Daimler-Benz DB 601, for instance. Is there some way that the Aircraft specs template can be made to somehow incorporate or reference the different types of horsepower?
One issue is that most English-language sources tend to use the German abbreviation for metric horsepower (PS), as that is used in German, but also in Japan and South Korea. It feels off to use PS when describing a Dewoitine or a Fiat, so another option is to use hp-metric in conversion templates, although that outputs to "hp" which can cause confusion (see example #4 in the table below). Some write "hp (m)" but there is no universally accepted standard. Anyhow, I hope someone has some thoughts on this. Here is a table of options for when using conversion templates:
Template | Result |
---|---|
{{cvt|1075|hp-metric|kW|0}} | 1,075 hp (791 kW) |
{{cvt|1075|PS|kW PS hp|0|order=out}} | 791 kW (1,075 PS; 1,060 hp) |
{{convert|1075|PS|kW|0|abbr=on}} | 1,075 PS (791 kW) |
{{cvt|791|kW|hp-metric hp|0}} | 791 kW (1,075 hp; 1,061 hp) |
{{cvt|791|kW|hp-metric bhp|0}} | 791 kW (1,075 hp; 1,061 bhp) |
{{cvt|1075|PS|kW|0|order=flip}} | 791 kW (1,075 PS) |
{{cvt|1060|hp|kW|0}} | 1,060 hp (790 kW) |
{{cvt|1060|hp|kW hp-metric bhp|0|order=out}} | 790 kW (1,075 hp; 1,060 bhp) |
Mr.choppers | ✎ 20:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed in Volocopter Volocity#Specifications that the template does not seem to handle "," as a decimal separator. For example, "length m=9,5" was rendered as 95m instead of the intended 9.5m, and the imperial units were also multiplied by 10. I fixed this by switching the comma to decimal point. Is comma supported as a decimal separator in this template? Harris7 ( talk) 16:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
I recently noticed a problem with the Kawasaki P-1 article; the "Armaments" section had double bullets for the "Bombs:" and "Other:" sub-headings, as seen here.
By comparing the formatting on that article to other military aircraft articles (example:
Nimrod MRA4), I discovered the problem: the P-1 article was using :*
to indent the individual items of armament, but it should have been using only *
to the required indent level. I made that change to the P-1 article and the double bullets went away.
In other words, this is incorrect and likely to result in double bullets:
|hardpoint missiles=<br> :* bottle rocket
This is correct and will likely render as intended:
|hardpoint missiles=<br> ***bottle rocket
This might be obvious to editors who have more experience than me, but it took me a little while to figure it out, so I thought I'd document it here. I don't think this is a problem with the template itself - it's (potentially) a problem with the user-supplied formatting for some of the template elements.
Thanks! 73.185.200.182 ( talk) 02:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Can someone with admin privileges add the link Aspect ratio (aeronautics) to the aspect ratio label in the specs template (or suggest alternate way)?
Thanks, -Fnlayson ( talk) 19:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please fix the "Never exceed speed" link to go to V speeds § VNE instead of the incorrectly capitalized V speeds § Vne which doesn't work because anchors are case sensitive. Thanks! DemonDays64 ( talk• contribs) 14:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
I used the "max speed note" for the first time and found it prints out in the wrong location. If you look at the source for Gloster P.370, I have put in an altitude that the speed is maximized. I expected it to come out beside the speed, so it would say something like "Mach 1.82 at 36000 ft", but instead, the "at 36000 ft" comes out on the title line after "Performance". This appears to be a bug? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 15:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Aircraft specs template. |
|
Archives: 1 |
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Based on usage in articles the following items should be fixed/updated:
Category:Aircraft without proper specifications
There's a discussion concerning this template at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Template:Aircraft specs merger bot Of particular concern to this template is how to handle Payload and loaded weight information from {{ Aircraft specifications}} which may involve adding new fields to this template and changing the conversion system to not perform automatic convertions for units where a value is manually given. -- Trialpears ( talk) 15:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Aircraft specs/convert,
Template:Aircraft specs/eng,
Template:Aircraft specs/length,
Template:Aircraft specs/range and
Template:Aircraft specs/speed has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I've made changes to the conversion subpages Template:Aircraft specs/convert/sandbox, Template:Aircraft specs/eng/sandbox, Template:Aircraft specs/length/sandbox, Template:Aircraft specs/range/sandbox and Template:Aircraft specs/speed/sandbox which make use of extra unit parameters if supplied, instead of converting to them from another unit. This is primarily done to prevent extra unit conversions when converting instances of {{ aircraft specifications}} to this template, which reduces the precision of our values. It will also be useful for overriding the conversion when it displays the wrong amount of significant figures. See also discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Template:Aircraft specs merger bot and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 20#Template:Aerospecs.
I've tested all functionality of these templates, both new and old, and have found no problems. The testcases work and the new functionality works correctly in test conversions of {{ Aircraft specifications}}. The speed and range conversion templates seems to behave weirdly with the parenthesis not displaying in the same way as the other templates, so I have made the formatting consistent with the other templates. If their current formatting (as seen in the test cases) were intentional I will happily switch back to that. -- Trialpears ( talk) 12:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Trialpears: Some articles are in Category:Convert errors. Sorry I don't have time at the moment to investigate the recent changes but I'm hoping someone will know how to handle the issue. No problem—I know it's hard to predict how templates are used and it doesn't matter if the articles are imperfect for a day or two while the common factors are found. I'll try to return in a few hours and see if some trick with convert might help. Johnuniq ( talk) 05:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Aircraft specs/length and
Template:Aircraft specs/eng has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
ceiling m=3100
gives convert error Value "outside" must be a number.ceiling m=5500
gives convert error Value "service" must be a number.This
edit request to
Template:Aircraft specs/speed has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Currently, in met all the speed parameters show 'km' in stead of 'km/h', which is not correct. I have tried in a sandbox edit but I am obviouslynot doing what is needed. Can someone help? Petebutt ( talk) 16:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Aircraft specs/range and
Template:Aircraft specs/eng has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
While we're here I've found the worst bug yet: Hiding the range if using kts as the prime unit since it was looking nmi (I set up my testcases under the same incorrect assumption). Fix in sandbox. -- Trialpears ( talk) 13:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
For
Cierva C.6#Specifications (C.6) and all others, Powerplant seems strange. It would be difficult to fit a
powerplant into any airplane. Template:Aircraft specs/doc#engines. Could it be possible to change the output of "|eng name=
" – to
engine.
Peter Horn
User talk
02:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I found that I had to bring my own formatting when adding a |more
entry. If that's true, and accepted as good practice, then it might be worth mentioning in the docs. In other words, just saying
|more general=Cup holders: 2
does not work; you have to say something like
|more general=<br> *'''Cup holders:''' 3<br> *'''Fog lights:''' 2
to get it to render correctly. (It was the Ford Trimotor article for me, but I think it would apply in general.) Thanks! 73.3.56.178 ( talk) 05:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
This is how the "Performance" sub-section now appears at
Junkers Ju 390 (for me anyway):
Performanceat [sic] 6,200 m (20,340 ft)at [sic] 2,500 m (8,200 ft)
Range: 8,000 km (4,970 mi, 4,320 nmi) Ju 390 V1 with 10,000 kg (22,046 lb) payload and 34,096 l (9,007 US gal; 7,500 imp gal) fuel at 330 km/h (210 mph; 180 kn) and 2,000 m (6,500 ft)
Combat range: 9,704 km (6,030 mi, 5,240 nmi) (reconnaissance mission)
Combat range (bomber mission): 9,254 km (5,750 mi; 4,997 nmi) with 1,930 kg (4,255 lb) bomb load
In addition, the following lines of actual template data are invisible in the article itself:
|max speed km/h=505
|max speed note=at {{cvt|20340|ft|order=flip}}
|cruise speed km/h=357
|cruise speed note=at {{cvt|8200|ft|order=flip}}
I haven't noticed this particular issue in any other articles. The ways of templates are often a mystery me, but I really have no idea why:
I'm guessing that there is either a strange bug in the coding of the template itself and/or something about the way this data has been entered?
(Also posted at
Talk:Junkers Ju 390.)
Grant | Talk 03:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The thrust and afterburner thrust don't format like previous templates. Rather than bulleted below the engine you get a (rambling) part sentence. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 15:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Should prop blade number really be required to display any propeller information? I think it should be made optional. -- Trialpears ( talk) 12:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I've been working on converting {{ Aerospecs}} to {{ Aircraft specs}} and most of the remaining cases ( 455 of them) are using a Wing profile parameter. I think this should be added here but want to make sure there is consensus before doing so. -- Trialpears ( talk) 21:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
In the GAF Jindivik article the current converted metric dimensions are displaying up to five decimal places, this is false precision, it is trying to convert 1/8 inch steps which in itself is daft but if that's what the source says then it has to be.
I am not authorised to edit this template otherwise I would do it myself. I recommend a review of all the decimal place settings throughout the template for consistency and would further recommend limiting the number of decimal places to two for all parameters unless there is a good case to do otherwise. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
The conversion is using {{
convert}}. I haven't examined
Template:Aircraft specs/convert but convert gives the following results ({{
cvt}} is convert with |abbr=on
):
{{cvt|40|ft|0.125|in}}
→ 40 ft 0.125 in (12.19518 m){{cvt|40|ft|1/8|in}}
→ 40 ft 1⁄8 in (12.195 m){{cvt|1/16|in|m|5}}
→ 1⁄16 in (0.00159 m){{cvt|1/16|in|m|sigfig=3}}
→ 1⁄16 in (0.00159 m)When convert is given a length of 40 feet and 1/8 inch, it calculates the output precision needed to show ±1⁄16 inch. If the inches is 0.125, the precision is ±0.0005 m with a bit extra that generally works out well, although not in this case. At any rate, please see
this edit at
Grumman TBF Avenger. That shows 12.195 m which is a technically correct precision but possibly more than wanted. To get 12.2 m, the template would need |sigfig=3
but that's tricky because it would always give 3 significant figures which might not be appropriate in some cases.
Johnuniq (
talk)
22:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
|max speed mach= doesn't seem to work when |max speed note= is used. Nigel Ish ( talk) 19:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Is there an established convention on dealing with masses for electric aircraft? IMO it should be: MTOW (or gross weight), comprising payload, fuel capacity gives battery details, then empty weight is MTOW - payload - battery. However, I've seen a few articles now which give empty weight including batteries. Is there an established convention, and if not, I propose the above. GEbb4 ( talk) 21:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I think I know a solution, but you don't want me to help. -- 84.189.92.195 ( talk) 23:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The swept span displays as lower wingspan - this is not performing as required - see General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark. Nigel Ish ( talk) 21:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Put spaces around the × output from rot number consistent with {{aircraft specs/eng}}. 148.252.129.49 ( talk) 13:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
I am not able to get the "sigfig" parameters to work correctly, at least with certain spec parameters, e.g. "empty weight" and "max takeoff weight". I have created a small example here. The empty weight should have only one significant figure and the max takeoff weight should have 8 significant figures. But it looks like in both cases the converted values have 6 significant figures:
General characteristics
Performance
Could somebody tell me what I did wrong? Spike ( talk) 17:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Gross weight: 55,000 lb (24,948 kg) Max takeoff weight: 68,000 lb (30,844 kg)" - it looks like the weight conversions are screwed up. IMHO adding sig fig option because one or two articles had lengths "accurate" to a fraction of an inch causing problems rather than the obvious answer of rounding the input to nearest inch was a bad move and should be undone. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 20:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
The manual of style states not to use bold in situations like this. Is there a specific reason it's used? If not, I would suggest that it be removed. Any input is appreciated. Regards, DesertPipeline ( talk) 18:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
;
) which we would otherwise have to fall back on. I'd respectfully advise that any serious suggestion for removal should be accompanied by a proposed replacement formatting with associated markup code known to meet accessibility guidelines, plus a rationale as to why it helps the visiting reader. But there are probably better things to be getting on with. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
20:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
You could consider making this template a table instead of a bulleted list. See the collapsed box for an example of how this would look. To save vertical space, perhaps each table can be positioned in the same place horizontally, each to the right of the last. Regards, DesertPipeline ( talk) 14:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Example of this template using a table
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Example of side-by-side tables
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
I'm confused as bolding is used in the same way on the main page, particularly the 'Other areas of Wikipedia' section, and infoboxes use a bolded parameter/fact label followed by entries in plain text for each line? Bolding parameter descriptions is used by the sources often used in these sections, Flight International, Janes and the Observer's Books series. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Example of unadorned tables
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Data from Source citation/s here
|
Just to clear up the basics, the suggestion is to rework the template so that it creates tables instead of bulleted lists. As already pointed out, no change to the articles is being proposed.
@
DesertPipeline: I cannot recall any significant publisher who uses cell borders for such tables. Although pretty background colours are sometimes used, that is purely for bling, they have no useful function and we fight an eternal battle against such bling artists; I would not want to encourage them. Also, why add unnecessary markup? The table headings in my example are bolded because they are formatted as table heading cells, using the !
(pling) wikitext markup instead of |
(pipe). They could be formatted as table titles or even captions, if preferred, but they do need some flag for the accessibility tools to hook onto. Personally I would stick to the default font size for whatever element is chosen, however if others prefer a larger size that is fine. Per
MOS:FONTSIZE the current use of
Template:Big is currently used to give a 120% enlargement. Spacing between elements can easily be adjusted using CSS, my example is just quick-and-dirty template output to demonstrate the principle. Whether the "Data from" cites are positioned above or below applies to whatever format we adopt, and is an independent issue.
<big>...</big>
should in any case be changed to a percentage
But I agree with GraemeLeggett that we would need to prove the concept with a functional prototype template before the rest of this Project would (even should) be willing to take such a proposal seriously. Is the risk of their turning it down, or of ZLEA's problems being intractable, really worth the hassle?
— Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 09:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC) [corrected 10:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)]
(Putting my comment here as I'm making a general reply) The suggestion to discuss the bold issue on the MOS talk page is sensible. The best idea would be to get conclusive data on whether bolding in lists like this (and whatever other contexts) actually helps readers. Regarding everything else said, I think it's getting a bit too complex for me to participate in this particular discussion – specifically, parts about general statistics for aircraft in a table. I'm not familiar enough with the subject to provide useful input. I hope that others can continue this discussion (possibly somewhere other than this talk page) and determine whether it should be implemented. Regards, DesertPipeline ( talk) 14:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I would like to point out that the problem with my table template is known, but I have no idea how to fix it. Here is how it would transclude with all parameters filled (note that I did not add all the parameters from the original template, and I left out units and conversions in these examples):
Transclusion with all parameters filled
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
{{Aircraft specs |prime units? = met |genhide = no |crew = yes |capacity = 3.14159265359 |length = long |span = 0 |upper span = +0 |mid span = ±0 |lower span = -0 |swept = 42 |dia = 2r |width = wide |height = high }} Transcludes as: {| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center" !colspan="2"| General characteristics |- ! Crew | yes |- ! Capacity | 3.14159265359 |- ! Length | long |- ! Wingspan | 0 |- ! Upper wingspan | +0 |- ! Mid wingspan | ±0 |- ! Lower wingspan | -0 |- ! Swept wingspan | 42 |- ! Diameter | 2r |- ! Width | wide |- ! Height | high |} Resulting in:
|
Since the template is designed to be universal for all aircraft, no aircraft will use all parameters. Unused parameters clutter up the template, so it is necessary to hide them with parser functions. However, parser functions seem to act like invisible characters (which I will call "phantom parser functions") when they are told to display nothing, meaning that the residual line breaks are not ignored when rendering the page:
Transclusion with some parameters blank
| ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
{{Aircraft specs |prime units? = met |genhide = no |crew = yes |capacity = 3.14159265359 |length = long |span = 0 |upper span = |mid span = |lower span = |swept = 42 |dia = |width = |height = high }} Transcludes as: {| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center" !colspan="2"| General characteristics |- ! Crew | yes |- ! Capacity | 3.14159265359 |- ! Length | long |- ! Wingspan | 0 (phantom parser function) (phantom parser function) (phantom parser function) |- ! Swept wingspan | 42 (phantom parser function) (phantom parser function) |- ! Height | high |} Resulting in:
|
If we can get around this problem, then creating a table format specs template should be easy. - ZLEA T\ C 00:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
|- ! Wingspan | 0(phantom parser function)(phantom parser function)(phantom parser function) |- ! Swept wingspan | 42(phantom parser function)(phantom parser function) |-
|- ! Wingspan | 0(phantom parser function)(phantom parser function)(phantom parser function) |- ! Swept wingspan | 42(phantom parser function)(phantom parser function) |-
Update: I am making good progress in my sandbox. For my current state of rendering and other information, see my aircraft user page. Salient points: I have needed three different ways to render table code, depending on where it sits in the pile of spaghetti. There is a second template, specially for the engine data, invoked only by the main template and hidden at Template:Aircraft specs/eng; I will be getting into that next. No showstoppers so far. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 11:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
That went easier than I expected. Here is an example in my new table format. It may be compared to the current live version here. What do folks think? If it seems to be on the right lines, I'll move it to the proper sandbox so it can be properly tested — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 14:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Specifications (fake pseudoheading)
References
But what I just described is a major programme of work and not worth taking further unless there is a clear project consensus for moving to this table-based format. I do not see that consensus emerging any time before a certain hot place freezes over. So as far as my proposal is concerned, it is game over. Thanks to all who contributed, if nothing else we have learned something which may help others down the line. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 15:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
I also prefer the current format, and don't see any need to change it. However, I'd support a trial on several high-profile articles to see if we get any reader feedback, positive or negative. If the readers overwhelmingly love it, or if there's little negative feedback, then I'd support a full rollout. BilCat ( talk) 20:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
One other question: How is this going to look on Mobile format? I don't use it, so I have no idea. BilCat ( talk) 20:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
I have incorporated the easy bits from the above comments, but there remain issues with them:
Styling is reverted to better match the current. The problem is that the section pseudoheadings are indistinguishable from the real level 3 headings, and I find that unacceptable. A halfway house is to make them the same size as the item headers, but that also looks horrible. The lack of a border further compounds the mess; it would at least box the thing off from the real article subheadings. Getting rid of the bolded first column solved all that, and is more in line with reputable publishing practice.
Indented and multi-line hardpoint parameters are provisionally addressed. I can adjust the indent as required. User-entered lists may still show various quirks, for this and the avionics, but creating a clean-up bot is beyond my comfort zone. But is it worth pursuing that cleanup bot?
For the mobile view, the standard skin has a menu along the very bottom of the page, with a "Mobile view" option.
— Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 09:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Specifications (fake pseudoheading)
References
Adding the image to the table can help ensure that it is displayed consistently while reducing coding and improving accessibility. - NiD.29 ( talk) 18:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Greetings and felicitations. In "with a capacity of {{{hardpoint capacity}}}," please add a space at the end, after the comma. Reason: Currently Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II#Specifications (A-10C) includes "with a capacity of 16,000 lb (7,260 kg),with provisions to carry combinations of: " [ sic]. Adding a space after the comma (by whatever means are reasonable) will alleviate this problem. — DocWatson42 ( talk) 15:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC) DocWatson42 ( talk) 15:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Done. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 20:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
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.
The following example fails to show up.
{{Aircraft specs
|max takeoff weight kg=15
|max speed kmh=150
|endurance=16 hours
|combat range km=140
|ferry range km=600
|ceiling m=5000
|eng1 type=1 stroke [[piston engine]]
|eng1 number=1
|eng1 hp=1
|eng1 name=SAITO FA-62B, JAPAN
|eng1 note=(fuel - gasoline A-95)
|more general=
* '''Payload:''' {{convert|6|kg|lbs|abbr=on}}
* '''Launch method''': a folding catapult platform
* '''Landing method''': parachute recovery
* '''Max. wind speed at the start''': 10 m/s
* '''Operational temperature range''': −30 to +40 °C
}}
General characteristics
Performance
{{Aircraft specs
|prime units?=met
|max takeoff weight kg=15
|max speed kmh=150
|endurance=16 hours
|combat range km=140
|ferry range km=600
|ceiling m=5000
|eng1 type=1 stroke [[piston engine]]
|eng1 number=1
|eng1 hp=1
|eng1 name=SAITO FA-62B, JAPAN
|eng1 note=(fuel - gasoline A-95)
|more general=
* '''Payload:''' {{convert|6|kg|lbs|abbr=on}}
* '''Launch method''': a folding catapult platform
* '''Landing method''': parachute recovery
* '''Max. wind speed at the start''': 10 m/s
* '''Operational temperature range''': −30 to +40 °C
}}
General characteristics
Performance
The current standard template for aircraft specifications includes a parameter labelled "gross weight", as well as the parameters "empty weight" and "max takeoff weight".
The definitions offered for "gross weight" and "max takeoff weight" are confusingly contradictory, namely:
"gross weight: the fully-loaded weight of the aircraft. In most cases, this will be the Maximum Take Off Weight"
and
"max takeoff weight: the max takeoff weight of the aircraft, when different from the above gross weight"
To add to the confusion "Aircraft gross weight" has its own Wikipedia page with another contradictory definition:
"gross weight (also known as the all-up weight and abbreviated AUW) is the total aircraft weight at any moment during the flight or ground operation"
In my more than 40 years in the industry, I have never encountered "gross weight" being used as anything other than a synonym for MTOW.
Wikipedia mixes the two terms indiscriminately, with some types having a "gross weight" in the specification block and others having a "max takeoff weight". A handful of types have both, with the annotation "landing" added to "gross weight" as a workaround for the fact that the current Wikipedia template, oddly, has no "max landing weight" parameter.
Type Certificates for civil aircraft invariably specify either "Max takeoff weight" (e.g. FAA) or "Max takeoff mass" (EASA) and do not contain any references to "gross weight".
My proposal is simple: If MLW is considered a desirable component of a Wikipedia aircraft specification, add "max landing weight" to the template with a rule that this is to be used where a MLW is (optionally) included in the specification.
Comments welcomed. DaveReidUK ( talk) 09:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Why are there no parameters for Take off distance, landing distance and distance to clear 15m/50ft?
For aircraft operating out of strips these are some of the most important parameters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkingscott ( talk • contribs) 01:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Some confusion has appeared on this page: Talk:Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor#Max altitude 65,000 feet
It would be helpful to include a link to Ceiling (aeronautics) for the service ceiling parameter just like we do for "thrust to weight". {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 11:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello airplane folks. I mostly write about cars but not exclusively. One issue I have noticed is that all (as far as I can tell) non-English speaking countries use metric horsepower, which is the equivalent of 735 watts rather than the 746 watt of an imperial or customary horsepower. This goes for Germany, France, Japan, and everyone else that I have been able to determine. In some articles I see that this is indeed taken into account, at Daimler-Benz DB 601, for instance. Is there some way that the Aircraft specs template can be made to somehow incorporate or reference the different types of horsepower?
One issue is that most English-language sources tend to use the German abbreviation for metric horsepower (PS), as that is used in German, but also in Japan and South Korea. It feels off to use PS when describing a Dewoitine or a Fiat, so another option is to use hp-metric in conversion templates, although that outputs to "hp" which can cause confusion (see example #4 in the table below). Some write "hp (m)" but there is no universally accepted standard. Anyhow, I hope someone has some thoughts on this. Here is a table of options for when using conversion templates:
Template | Result |
---|---|
{{cvt|1075|hp-metric|kW|0}} | 1,075 hp (791 kW) |
{{cvt|1075|PS|kW PS hp|0|order=out}} | 791 kW (1,075 PS; 1,060 hp) |
{{convert|1075|PS|kW|0|abbr=on}} | 1,075 PS (791 kW) |
{{cvt|791|kW|hp-metric hp|0}} | 791 kW (1,075 hp; 1,061 hp) |
{{cvt|791|kW|hp-metric bhp|0}} | 791 kW (1,075 hp; 1,061 bhp) |
{{cvt|1075|PS|kW|0|order=flip}} | 791 kW (1,075 PS) |
{{cvt|1060|hp|kW|0}} | 1,060 hp (790 kW) |
{{cvt|1060|hp|kW hp-metric bhp|0|order=out}} | 790 kW (1,075 hp; 1,060 bhp) |
Mr.choppers | ✎ 20:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed in Volocopter Volocity#Specifications that the template does not seem to handle "," as a decimal separator. For example, "length m=9,5" was rendered as 95m instead of the intended 9.5m, and the imperial units were also multiplied by 10. I fixed this by switching the comma to decimal point. Is comma supported as a decimal separator in this template? Harris7 ( talk) 16:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
I recently noticed a problem with the Kawasaki P-1 article; the "Armaments" section had double bullets for the "Bombs:" and "Other:" sub-headings, as seen here.
By comparing the formatting on that article to other military aircraft articles (example:
Nimrod MRA4), I discovered the problem: the P-1 article was using :*
to indent the individual items of armament, but it should have been using only *
to the required indent level. I made that change to the P-1 article and the double bullets went away.
In other words, this is incorrect and likely to result in double bullets:
|hardpoint missiles=<br> :* bottle rocket
This is correct and will likely render as intended:
|hardpoint missiles=<br> ***bottle rocket
This might be obvious to editors who have more experience than me, but it took me a little while to figure it out, so I thought I'd document it here. I don't think this is a problem with the template itself - it's (potentially) a problem with the user-supplied formatting for some of the template elements.
Thanks! 73.185.200.182 ( talk) 02:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Can someone with admin privileges add the link Aspect ratio (aeronautics) to the aspect ratio label in the specs template (or suggest alternate way)?
Thanks, -Fnlayson ( talk) 19:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please fix the "Never exceed speed" link to go to V speeds § VNE instead of the incorrectly capitalized V speeds § Vne which doesn't work because anchors are case sensitive. Thanks! DemonDays64 ( talk• contribs) 14:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
I used the "max speed note" for the first time and found it prints out in the wrong location. If you look at the source for Gloster P.370, I have put in an altitude that the speed is maximized. I expected it to come out beside the speed, so it would say something like "Mach 1.82 at 36000 ft", but instead, the "at 36000 ft" comes out on the title line after "Performance". This appears to be a bug? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 15:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)