Template talk:Infobox aircraft begin

Docs
The examples should be beefed up with actual examples. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 11:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

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


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

Aircraft name at the present time
The names of aircraft are currently displaying in a comically large point size.

Can that please be brought down a little bit? It looks silly.

Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * While the font isn't as big as you make it out to be, it is bigger than other infoboxes (see Albert Sidney Johnston, American Revolutionary War, Henry Darcy.) I don't know if there is a standard header size for infoboxes, but I'll check. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 02:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Size
Why does the infobox eschew any kind of dimensions whatsover? Whenever I go to look at an aircraft, my first question on looking at the photograph is 'how big is it?' for which I find the maximum takeoff weight the most useful measure. Take the Boeing 747 for example. From the infobox I get the 1967, 1976, and 1982 unit costs but I can't tell how big it is. - 82.35.238.200 (talk) 06:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The WPAIR project made a diliberate decision not to include the aircraft sixe in the infobox. All such info is usually displayed in the specifications section, usually near the end of the article. - BilCat (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand the information is there. I don't understand why it appears at the the end of the article rather than the start.  What was the basis of the WPAIR project decision?  - 82.35.238.200 (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

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


 * I don't see a problem with the image you mentioned on my system. I'm open to experimenting, but we need to now if it's a wide-spread problem first. You might see if you can view the image in other browsers or OSs and see if the issue remains for you. (I am veiwing on Win 7 with IE8, if that helps.) - BilCat (talk) 12:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You can see the border using Firefox, all it would need is to remove the border declaration. Somebody really clever could make it switch in and out. Perhaps I might go away and learn some code stuff. MilborneOne (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If you have a look at Template:Infobox aircraft begin/testcases I have added a image-border = . This lets you adjust the border size, 0 is none upwards. If it was used then all the borders would dissapear unless you had image-border=1 or higher. Problem may be the higher you could add a really big border by accident. Still not clever enough to only allow 0 or 1 MilborneOne (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it looks better with the border than without, especially on an image with a light background, which is why the border was added in the first place. There is adequete space between the nose tip and the border on my browser, but as above, it could be an issue on other systems/browsers. - BilCat (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

174.21.230.65 (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The alt text seems to be working fine. I think perhaps you are confusing alternative text with the caption. There is some explanation at WP:ALT. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * When you say alt text is "working fine" could you please describe in some detail what you mean? Other infoboxes allow readers to hover the mouse cursor over the image and the ALT text will display. That does not happen here. Does this tempate have inferior functionality by design? If so, what is the justification for the inferiority? Thank you. 97.113.9.12 (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This template uses alt text syntax that is no different from that prescribed at WP:EIS -  and therefore if the template is given e.g. A jet airliner in flight (see right) it will be used as alt text. Please note that alt text being used as a tooltip when hovering over an image is not the design purpose of alt text: some browser vendors have chosen to implement it that way, but by no means all. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, confusing this with the unnamed "caption" parameter for hovering text (demonstrated here). By the way, is there a reason for the div border, rather than using the standard   parameter for images?  Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  20:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

"alt" parameter changed to "image_alt"?
One of the effects of by  seems to have been to change the name of the alt parameter to image_alt. Am I reading this correctly? Because if so, I don't understand why the change was made and I'm concerned that the effect may be to prevent the documented alt from working as intended in existing infoboxes. Comments? Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 04:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point, the first article I checked Boeing 767 has "|alt=..." in its infobox. You can either ask to make the change, or use the request for a protected edit template. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's odd. I am trying to figure out where I got the edit request from, and I most likely added that because someone asked to change it, and I just didn't question the reason for modifying that parameter. Either way, it works now! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Yes, I confirm that I now see the expected behavior. Inspecting the HTML for Boeing 767, the correct alternative text appears in the alt attribute of the tag. Previously I just saw the image filename repeated in that attribute. – Wdchk (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 May 2018
I believe the  in the source should be removed. I haven't done any tests to establish that this is correct, but the  is "obviously" unpaired as there is no corresponding   tag. Moreover, the first five articles that link to this template all have stripped  tags that go away if the image parameter is removed from the call to this template — and the tag is at the end of some code processing the image parameter. Anomalocaris (talk) 09:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Galobtter: Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Capacity
I cannot find the place where to add capacity.

While modern aircraft has a range, early airliners carried 8, or 10 passengers specifically. Even modern planes exist with specified passenger seats.

Please improve the documentation. CapnZapp (talk) 10:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Probably because this is the wrong template, have a look at the ones listed in "other modules". MilborneOne (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There does not seem to be a "specs" infobox module listed – the listing for  even says "but not technical specifications". I looked at  as well.  exists, but is used to produce the bullet lists in the body, apparently not useful for the infobox (e.g. Douglas DC-3). At least capacity, range, and engine count seem like important distinguishing characteristics that should appear in the infobox (probably as ranges for multi-model types like the B737). I'm guessing this was discussed somewhere? —[  Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 02:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Probably because we dont list specifications in the infobox but in the "Specifications" section, you could try asking at the aircraft project if you can get a new consensus to add specs but I dont see a need for it. MilborneOne (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Why does this exist?
This infobox is very confusing to use for the first time because it it so different from other infobox and it requires a table. Considering this templates small size and the fact it is very stable, can it not just be merged into the four other templates that are meant to be used with it and they can be converted into proper infoboxes? – Brandon XLF  (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * It's the header for the other 4 modules, which enables them to be stacked together on articles as needed. I don't know what you mean by "it requires a table", as it does not use what I consider to be tables. As far as "converted into proper infoboxes", I don't know enough about that to know what all it involves. As long as the conversion keeps the same functionality we have now without requiring a lot of extra work by WP:AIR members to update articles that use these infoboxes, that's fine. Unfortunately, that hasn't been my experience with such changes in the past. - BilCat (talk) 09:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've finished converting these templates to proper infoboxes that use infobox at User:BrandonXLF/C. Since most articles just use this template and one of the other ones, updating would be as simple as replacing  with , removing  , and removing the bottom   at the end. For the around 50 articles that use both Infobox aircraft career and Infobox aircraft type, a similar process could also be performed. In both of these cases, the work can be automated. I guess the best choice would be to add a check to the templates to see if tey are given a   parameter, and if they are, use the new infobox based code. –  Brandon XLF  (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks! What you need to do now is to present it at WT:AIR to get a consensus to replace it. The best title for the new template would probably be Template:Infobox aircraft, as that not currently in use. BilCat (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)±


 * You never followed up to my response. Are you still interested in doing this? If so I have some suggestions for improvements to the infobox regarding operators, and other editors may have some other ideas too. I'd still prefer to use modules rather than one long template, but that's also something than can be discussed by the project. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Tail Number
Is there a view on where one can add tail numbers? I can see how it might be an overkill on this infobox. Has this been discussed in the past? Would be good to know. By way of context, I am trying to add Tail info for the Dreamlifter. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaisertalk (talk) 01:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Short answer: No. - BilCat (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Long answer: No - except for individual aircraft articles (refer to Template:Infobox aircraft career) but as the Dreamlifter is not an indivudal aircraft but a type with more than one example it is not relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 5 May 2021
Proposed change:  to   for the title. This change makes the title sizing more typical for infobox titles (on normal 14px text settings, this is currently at 18px, while my change puts it at the normal 15.4px). I have implemented the change in the sandbox. — Goszei (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. BilCat (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If there are no objections here in one week, I will reopen the edit request. See WP:SILENCE/WP:TPEBOLD. — Goszei (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose - no substantial reason given for making the change. This infobox isn't supposed to look like the others, and there's nothing wrong with the font size as is. BilCat (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Merger and deprecation
Are the image_border and plain size (as opposed to image_size) fields ever used? This template is being deprecated and its fields incorporated in other aircraft templates used in association with it. They were merged into Infobox aircraft following this decision a while ago, and the two fields I mentioned were not included. I am hoping to do something similar for infobox aircraft engine, so am not planning to include them either. Is this likely to cause a problem when converting articles to use the new format and fields? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I occasionally use the border parameter, but not the size. However, I've seen it used on occasion, and it could be useful at times for odd-sized photos. BilCat (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds like simply dropping these parameter names might break a few things, then. I wonder how this is being handled for the cloning into Infobox aircraft. Maybe it's better just to wait and see how that pans out, before attempting the merge into Infobox aircraft engine. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's probably a good idea to wait. BilCat (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)