![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Template:Infobox aircraft type is permanently
protected from editing because it is a
heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by
consensus, editors may use {{
edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's
documentation to add usage notes or
categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. This template does not have a testcases subpage. You can create the testcases subpage here. |
(Orignally from Template:Infobox Aircraft/doc)
This infobox is used to summarize an aircraft's key points. It is not used for dimensions or performance; for that, use {{ Aircraft specifications}}.
Only |name=
, |type=
, and |manufacturer=
are required fields. All others are optional, though some have guidelines you should follow to achieve the best, most consistent appearance.
{{Infobox Aircraft Type |type = <!-- REQUIRED - aircraft's role --> |national origin = <!-- Use the main nation (ie. UK), not constituent country (England); don't use "EU". List collaborative programs of only 2 or 3 nations; for more than 3, use "Multi-national:. --> |manufacturer = <!-- REQUIRED --> |designer = <!--Only appropriate for single designers, not project leaders--> |first flight = <!--If this hasn't happened, skip this field!--> |introduction = <!--Date the aircraft is to enter military or revenue service; use sparingly. --> |introduced = <!--Date the aircraft entered military or revenue service --> |retired = <!--Date the aircraft left service. If vague or more than a few dates, skip this --> |status = <!--In most cases, redundant; use sparingly --> |primary user = <!-- List only one user; for military aircraft, this is a nation or a service arm. Please DON'T add those tiny flags, as they limit horizontal space. --> |more users = <!-- Limited to THREE (3) 'more users' here (4 total users). Separate users with <br/>. --> |produced = <!--Years in production (eg. 1970-1999) if still in active use but no longer built --> |number built = <!--Number of flight capable aircraft completed, for aircraft under development or still in production only those aircraft that have flown should be included. --> |program cost = <!--Total program cost--> |unit cost = <!--Incremental or flyaway cost for military or retail price for commercial aircraft --> |developed from = <!--The aircraft which formed the basis for this aircraft --> |variants with their own articles = <!--Variants OF this aircraft --> |developed into = <!--For derivative aircraft based on this aircraft --> }}
Would it be useful to add Equipment Codes to show the ICAO / IATA codes for airliners e.g. A320/320? Marcfarrow ( talk) 15:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Why is the parameter "Developed into" undocumented? Was this a mere oversight, or is its use not encouraged? -- Colin Douglas Howell ( talk) 17:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
The insistence on a single "Primary user", followed by "More users", doesn't fit situations where an aircraft had multiple major users of comparable importance. In fact, this rule seems to be violated in some articles (e.g. Douglas DC-2). Should the documentation be updated? -- Colin Douglas Howell ( talk) 17:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
For aircraft not yet introduced (e.g. Sukhoi PAK FA) it makes little sense to say "Introduced 2013 (planned)". If the table said "Introduction 2013 (planned)" it would read far better - and that wording also makes sense for historic aircraft. Oddly enough the parameter in the template seems to be named "Introduction", can word in the table not be "Introduction" as well? TheGrappler ( talk) 17:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Infobox should contain information about its place in aviation evolution; which aircraft does it supercede and which supercedes it. (predecessor, successor). Compare with Template:Infobox automobile . TGCP ( talk) 06:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
This infobox (and hence articles using it) uses the terms Type and Role as if they are interchangeable, but they have distinct meanings. For example the RQ-4 article currently says "Role: Unmanned aerial vehicle", but its role is really surveillance. I think the infobox should have separate Type (mandatory) and Role parameters. For some aircraft it might be appropriate to use both parameters - e.g. "Type: Helicopter ( tandem rotors)", "Role: SAR / Military transport". Anybody agree/disagree ? DexDor ( talk) 22:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry; I should have been more clear. As I said in the edit summary: 'reverting to "Role"; I think an ambiguous label makes things even less clear.' IMHO, the problem with "role/type" is that it dilutes the field too much -- since this is a label, it's best to keep it sharp and focused. In principle, I think "description" would be better, but in practice, I wonder how that would get abused. I would hate to see sentences starting to appear in there.
The underlying problem of course, is that "type" is an overloaded term with far too many possible meanings.
My sense is that the field has indeed been used pretty consistently for "role" -- certainly, that's what the examples have suggested for years now, and which the template documentation stated until last week (I've just rolled that back pending the outcome of this discussion). I'm willing to do a survey of our articles to gather some usage statistics though. Can we please postpone any change for a week or so to let me gather data?
Questions for the meantime:
Assuming that the above two statements are correct, we need to develop three things in concert: the label that appears in the box, the data field in the template code, and the wording of the template documentation.
-- Rlandmann ( talk) 12:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm seeing " Foo Air Force (intended)" added to the "primary user" field more frequently now, but sometimes there's not enough space for the whole entry on one line. So, what about adding an "Intended user" field tothe infobox? This can be used for aircraft designs that were not built/never flew, but still had intended customers. - BilCat ( talk) 07:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Do we really need to use 2 different words for this? I'd rather see us just use "Introduction" for past or future. We can change the output of "Introduced to read "Introduction", and grandfather it out over several month, perhaps having a bot change the remaining uses on the article after a few months. - BilCat ( talk) 21:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On line one, please replace: <pre><nowiki> <noinclude>{{pp-semi-template}}</noinclude> </nowiki></pre> with: <pre><nowiki> <noinclude>{{pp-template}}</noinclude> </nowiki></pre> so that it will match the actual protection level. Thanks. LikeLakers2 ( talk | Sign my guestbook!) 15:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
What happened with the consensus to include groups and organisations - either as a new entry or under 'Designer' - as per the talk-page Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (aircraft) ? BP OMowe ( talk) 04:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
When talking about military programmes, the preferred British English spelling is "programme". Can I suggest the template be modified to allow both spellings ("program" and "programme") in both the parameter name and the text as it is rendered in the page. See this recent edit for an example of me undoing someone else's attempt to fix this for a British developed aircraft. Astronaut ( talk) 16:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
The word "primary" is ambiguous. "Primary users" can mean "main users" or "earliest users". Besides, the earliest users may no longer be the main ones. Let's do something about it. 85.193.214.150 ( talk) 00:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
BilCat wrote:
>"sometimes the earliest user is listed first, sometimes it's the largest user"
Good catch! You've just indicated, that a single word may be not enough. So why not to use both: "earliest" or "largest" respectively?
>"Primary" works well in both cases
Yes, it does... for the editor, but not for the reader. Can you tell the difference? ;-)
But seriously, must we really destroy original information, which is precise and useful?
85.193.214.150 (
talk)
22:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
What do people think of the idea of changing the label "Designer" to "Designer(s)", to cater for situations like Jonker JS-1 Revelation, where the aircraft was designed by multiple individuals? DH85868993 ( talk) 10:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Separating list items with <br />
is an accessibility error. Templates such as {{
plainlist}} and {{
unbulleted list}} should be used instead. See
MOS:UBLIST and
MOS:VLIST for the guidelines. I've
boldly changed the advice in the template documentation to reflect this.
Hairy Dude (
talk)
12:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
There should be a section for parallel development. - ZLEA ( Talk, Contribs) 06:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
For example, the Tupolev Tu-16 was succeeded by the Tupolev Tu-22, but currently the only way to indicate this is inline in the text. Would such information not be useful in this infobox?
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the line <noinclude>{{pp-template}}</noinclude>
- protection templates are automatically handled by the documentation page. Thanks, --
DannyS712 (
talk)
06:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
What was the reason for the designer parameter field not including chief engineers/designers? I started adding a few of them to the relevant articles before I ended up looking at this template and seeing the usage notes.
I looked back through the naming conventions talk page mentioned in a previous section, but I don't see any explanation of why that decision was made. It seems like it was made with Soviet aircraft design bureaus in mind and not other western cases such as the DC-3, B-24, and B-26. This question was even raised at the end of the section, and the suggestion was to use the "design group". However, it doesn't quite seem like it would fit in this scenario to have the infobox read "Design group Arthur Emmons Raymond" and "Design group Raymond's design-group" seems both awkward and redundant.
I can understand why we don't want to include multiple people that designed a single aircraft – I am not referring to that. However, it seems entirely reasonable to include chief engineers/designers. Many of them already have their own articles (e.g. Arthur Emmons Raymond, Isaac M. Laddon, Peyton M. Magruder) which indicates they are notable enough. (At the same time, these articles are also orphans, so adding a link to them in the infobox would help solve this.) – Noha307 ( talk) 21:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I think this infobox should include a field for notable replicas, which are not technically variants or developments, but obviously inspired by the aircraft. What does everyone else think? - ZLEA T\ C 22:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
IMO, adding an ICAO designator to the infobox would be valuable; in particular, there are cases (such as Beechcraft 400/400A/Hawker 400XP) when it is this designator which illustrates that the aircraft type is substantially the same despite being marketed under different commercial names. Ipsign ( talk) 20:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Would it not be interesting to add these rather crucial features to an aircraft in the infobox?-- Eivindgh ( talk) 18:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Removing_cost_parameters GraemeLeggett ( talk) 11:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is how to use a talk page, but I can't see "unit cost" in infoboxes, despite it clearly being in the source. StSeanSpicer ( talk) 05:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
This template underwent some breaking changes in January. Was the work ever completed? Lots of articles were affected, and I don't think any work was done to comprehensively find and fix articles that were affected. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 19:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Should there be a parameter for air-to-air kills? ☢️Plutonical☢️ ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 18:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
There are a huge number of abuses of this field out there, listing more than one designer or the evident head of a large team. There are (apparently) special cases such as the Supermarine Spitfire. I very quickly found the Heinkel He 111, HAL HF-24 Marut, Lockheed YF-12, Hawker Hurricane and Hawker Hart, which vary from abuse to possible special case (how would one know?) to dubious edge case. I respectfully suggest that this field is not doing what it should.
We could ignore the mess, drop the parameter altogether, or agree to re-purpose it closer to the way its is actually being used. My preference would be for the last of these.
In particular, I would suggest that the chief designer of a team should be acceptable. Also, a short list where the designers were equal partners and cutting someone out would be untenable. No project managers, Company Chief Designers, etc. unless they personally headed the actual team.
— Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 21:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Nobody seems set against the principle of expanding the scope of the Designer parameter. I therefore propose amending the template guideline to read:
Any objections? — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 16:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Template:Infobox aircraft type is permanently
protected from editing because it is a
heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by
consensus, editors may use {{
edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's
documentation to add usage notes or
categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. This template does not have a testcases subpage. You can create the testcases subpage here. |
(Orignally from Template:Infobox Aircraft/doc)
This infobox is used to summarize an aircraft's key points. It is not used for dimensions or performance; for that, use {{ Aircraft specifications}}.
Only |name=
, |type=
, and |manufacturer=
are required fields. All others are optional, though some have guidelines you should follow to achieve the best, most consistent appearance.
{{Infobox Aircraft Type |type = <!-- REQUIRED - aircraft's role --> |national origin = <!-- Use the main nation (ie. UK), not constituent country (England); don't use "EU". List collaborative programs of only 2 or 3 nations; for more than 3, use "Multi-national:. --> |manufacturer = <!-- REQUIRED --> |designer = <!--Only appropriate for single designers, not project leaders--> |first flight = <!--If this hasn't happened, skip this field!--> |introduction = <!--Date the aircraft is to enter military or revenue service; use sparingly. --> |introduced = <!--Date the aircraft entered military or revenue service --> |retired = <!--Date the aircraft left service. If vague or more than a few dates, skip this --> |status = <!--In most cases, redundant; use sparingly --> |primary user = <!-- List only one user; for military aircraft, this is a nation or a service arm. Please DON'T add those tiny flags, as they limit horizontal space. --> |more users = <!-- Limited to THREE (3) 'more users' here (4 total users). Separate users with <br/>. --> |produced = <!--Years in production (eg. 1970-1999) if still in active use but no longer built --> |number built = <!--Number of flight capable aircraft completed, for aircraft under development or still in production only those aircraft that have flown should be included. --> |program cost = <!--Total program cost--> |unit cost = <!--Incremental or flyaway cost for military or retail price for commercial aircraft --> |developed from = <!--The aircraft which formed the basis for this aircraft --> |variants with their own articles = <!--Variants OF this aircraft --> |developed into = <!--For derivative aircraft based on this aircraft --> }}
Would it be useful to add Equipment Codes to show the ICAO / IATA codes for airliners e.g. A320/320? Marcfarrow ( talk) 15:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Why is the parameter "Developed into" undocumented? Was this a mere oversight, or is its use not encouraged? -- Colin Douglas Howell ( talk) 17:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
The insistence on a single "Primary user", followed by "More users", doesn't fit situations where an aircraft had multiple major users of comparable importance. In fact, this rule seems to be violated in some articles (e.g. Douglas DC-2). Should the documentation be updated? -- Colin Douglas Howell ( talk) 17:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
For aircraft not yet introduced (e.g. Sukhoi PAK FA) it makes little sense to say "Introduced 2013 (planned)". If the table said "Introduction 2013 (planned)" it would read far better - and that wording also makes sense for historic aircraft. Oddly enough the parameter in the template seems to be named "Introduction", can word in the table not be "Introduction" as well? TheGrappler ( talk) 17:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Infobox should contain information about its place in aviation evolution; which aircraft does it supercede and which supercedes it. (predecessor, successor). Compare with Template:Infobox automobile . TGCP ( talk) 06:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
This infobox (and hence articles using it) uses the terms Type and Role as if they are interchangeable, but they have distinct meanings. For example the RQ-4 article currently says "Role: Unmanned aerial vehicle", but its role is really surveillance. I think the infobox should have separate Type (mandatory) and Role parameters. For some aircraft it might be appropriate to use both parameters - e.g. "Type: Helicopter ( tandem rotors)", "Role: SAR / Military transport". Anybody agree/disagree ? DexDor ( talk) 22:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry; I should have been more clear. As I said in the edit summary: 'reverting to "Role"; I think an ambiguous label makes things even less clear.' IMHO, the problem with "role/type" is that it dilutes the field too much -- since this is a label, it's best to keep it sharp and focused. In principle, I think "description" would be better, but in practice, I wonder how that would get abused. I would hate to see sentences starting to appear in there.
The underlying problem of course, is that "type" is an overloaded term with far too many possible meanings.
My sense is that the field has indeed been used pretty consistently for "role" -- certainly, that's what the examples have suggested for years now, and which the template documentation stated until last week (I've just rolled that back pending the outcome of this discussion). I'm willing to do a survey of our articles to gather some usage statistics though. Can we please postpone any change for a week or so to let me gather data?
Questions for the meantime:
Assuming that the above two statements are correct, we need to develop three things in concert: the label that appears in the box, the data field in the template code, and the wording of the template documentation.
-- Rlandmann ( talk) 12:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm seeing " Foo Air Force (intended)" added to the "primary user" field more frequently now, but sometimes there's not enough space for the whole entry on one line. So, what about adding an "Intended user" field tothe infobox? This can be used for aircraft designs that were not built/never flew, but still had intended customers. - BilCat ( talk) 07:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Do we really need to use 2 different words for this? I'd rather see us just use "Introduction" for past or future. We can change the output of "Introduced to read "Introduction", and grandfather it out over several month, perhaps having a bot change the remaining uses on the article after a few months. - BilCat ( talk) 21:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On line one, please replace: <pre><nowiki> <noinclude>{{pp-semi-template}}</noinclude> </nowiki></pre> with: <pre><nowiki> <noinclude>{{pp-template}}</noinclude> </nowiki></pre> so that it will match the actual protection level. Thanks. LikeLakers2 ( talk | Sign my guestbook!) 15:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
What happened with the consensus to include groups and organisations - either as a new entry or under 'Designer' - as per the talk-page Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (aircraft) ? BP OMowe ( talk) 04:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
When talking about military programmes, the preferred British English spelling is "programme". Can I suggest the template be modified to allow both spellings ("program" and "programme") in both the parameter name and the text as it is rendered in the page. See this recent edit for an example of me undoing someone else's attempt to fix this for a British developed aircraft. Astronaut ( talk) 16:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
The word "primary" is ambiguous. "Primary users" can mean "main users" or "earliest users". Besides, the earliest users may no longer be the main ones. Let's do something about it. 85.193.214.150 ( talk) 00:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
BilCat wrote:
>"sometimes the earliest user is listed first, sometimes it's the largest user"
Good catch! You've just indicated, that a single word may be not enough. So why not to use both: "earliest" or "largest" respectively?
>"Primary" works well in both cases
Yes, it does... for the editor, but not for the reader. Can you tell the difference? ;-)
But seriously, must we really destroy original information, which is precise and useful?
85.193.214.150 (
talk)
22:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
What do people think of the idea of changing the label "Designer" to "Designer(s)", to cater for situations like Jonker JS-1 Revelation, where the aircraft was designed by multiple individuals? DH85868993 ( talk) 10:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Separating list items with <br />
is an accessibility error. Templates such as {{
plainlist}} and {{
unbulleted list}} should be used instead. See
MOS:UBLIST and
MOS:VLIST for the guidelines. I've
boldly changed the advice in the template documentation to reflect this.
Hairy Dude (
talk)
12:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
There should be a section for parallel development. - ZLEA ( Talk, Contribs) 06:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
For example, the Tupolev Tu-16 was succeeded by the Tupolev Tu-22, but currently the only way to indicate this is inline in the text. Would such information not be useful in this infobox?
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the line <noinclude>{{pp-template}}</noinclude>
- protection templates are automatically handled by the documentation page. Thanks, --
DannyS712 (
talk)
06:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
What was the reason for the designer parameter field not including chief engineers/designers? I started adding a few of them to the relevant articles before I ended up looking at this template and seeing the usage notes.
I looked back through the naming conventions talk page mentioned in a previous section, but I don't see any explanation of why that decision was made. It seems like it was made with Soviet aircraft design bureaus in mind and not other western cases such as the DC-3, B-24, and B-26. This question was even raised at the end of the section, and the suggestion was to use the "design group". However, it doesn't quite seem like it would fit in this scenario to have the infobox read "Design group Arthur Emmons Raymond" and "Design group Raymond's design-group" seems both awkward and redundant.
I can understand why we don't want to include multiple people that designed a single aircraft – I am not referring to that. However, it seems entirely reasonable to include chief engineers/designers. Many of them already have their own articles (e.g. Arthur Emmons Raymond, Isaac M. Laddon, Peyton M. Magruder) which indicates they are notable enough. (At the same time, these articles are also orphans, so adding a link to them in the infobox would help solve this.) – Noha307 ( talk) 21:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I think this infobox should include a field for notable replicas, which are not technically variants or developments, but obviously inspired by the aircraft. What does everyone else think? - ZLEA T\ C 22:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
IMO, adding an ICAO designator to the infobox would be valuable; in particular, there are cases (such as Beechcraft 400/400A/Hawker 400XP) when it is this designator which illustrates that the aircraft type is substantially the same despite being marketed under different commercial names. Ipsign ( talk) 20:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Would it not be interesting to add these rather crucial features to an aircraft in the infobox?-- Eivindgh ( talk) 18:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Removing_cost_parameters GraemeLeggett ( talk) 11:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is how to use a talk page, but I can't see "unit cost" in infoboxes, despite it clearly being in the source. StSeanSpicer ( talk) 05:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
This template underwent some breaking changes in January. Was the work ever completed? Lots of articles were affected, and I don't think any work was done to comprehensively find and fix articles that were affected. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 19:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Should there be a parameter for air-to-air kills? ☢️Plutonical☢️ ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 18:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
There are a huge number of abuses of this field out there, listing more than one designer or the evident head of a large team. There are (apparently) special cases such as the Supermarine Spitfire. I very quickly found the Heinkel He 111, HAL HF-24 Marut, Lockheed YF-12, Hawker Hurricane and Hawker Hart, which vary from abuse to possible special case (how would one know?) to dubious edge case. I respectfully suggest that this field is not doing what it should.
We could ignore the mess, drop the parameter altogether, or agree to re-purpose it closer to the way its is actually being used. My preference would be for the last of these.
In particular, I would suggest that the chief designer of a team should be acceptable. Also, a short list where the designers were equal partners and cutting someone out would be untenable. No project managers, Company Chief Designers, etc. unless they personally headed the actual team.
— Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 21:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Nobody seems set against the principle of expanding the scope of the Designer parameter. I therefore propose amending the template guideline to read:
Any objections? — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 16:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)