Template talk:Infobox aircraft engine

Text?
Another great idea, I can't see the text to copy or get this to work in my sandbox, perhaps something is missing? Cheers Nimbus (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not a complete template: It's a module that's controlled by Infobox Aircraft Begin. Sorry - I've been very slack in documenting all this. I'll get on to it ASAP - promise! In the meantime, take a look at, say Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire, to see how the templates work. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No wonder I was confused!! Plenty of articles need this badly. Nimbus (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So it's two templates joined together at the moment? That's my piccie of a Sapphire! Nimbus (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not just "at the moment" - this modular approach (borrowed from our nautical neighbours) provides common formatting for a range of aircraft-related infoboxes, providing uniformity and simplifying maintenance. Infobox Aircraft Begin controls the general formatting, and also carries the name, picture, and caption fields (common to all types of articles). This template carries broad aeroengine-specifics (but leaving technical specifications to the pistonspecs and jetspecs templates. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK! I can work it out, just does not seem as easy as the 'aircraft infobox', I'm a cutter and paster! Just been reading about Zeppelins, stamps and copyright (copyleft?), you are a very patient guy. Cheers Nimbus (talk) 23:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No biggie - just "cut and paste" from the Sapphire and you'll be right. No need to wade into the intricacies of the coding if you don't want/need to! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Code? Lordy!! Have a look at Rolls-Royce Griffon, I think it works well. Nimbus (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep - that's the ticket alright. If you're looking for a job - there are a few engine articles bearing the generic Infobox Aviation that should get updated to this template as a matter of priority. You'll find them scattered through this list --Rlandmann (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK! Not many to do then! Was in there earlier finding articles that already had infoboxes (easy, peasy!) Nimbus (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Enlarge to include specifications??
I think this should probably be enlarged to include specific fuel consumption, thrust, compression ratio, length, diameter etc. etc.

Anyone?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikiproject aircraft uses a separate template within the article text to include this information - see description and examples here. Discussion is probably best directed to WT:AIR, since it's unlikely that many people are watching this page. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 10:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Needs fixing
Doesn't show the text to insert!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Petebutt (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

include with infobox aircraft begin
should this be on every aircraft ? such as the Spitfire, not much for detail on the (slight) variants Dave Rave (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure what you're asking. However, this infobox module is for aircraft engines, so it would not be used on the Spitfire article. - BilCat (talk) 03:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Unit cost
May I ask why this infobox shows the unit cost? WP:NOTCATALOGUE says, "Sales catalogues. An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices and availability of a single product from different vendors or retailers." Blue windy muso (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The field is optional, not mandatory. If a value is not entered it does not display. I doubt if any airline/aircraft purchasing people would use Wikipedia as an aircraft engine buying guide. I believe that the development programme and unit costs are encyclopaedic and interesting, particularly with older engines (WW II era) and abandoned projects (who footed the bill etc). Historic value figures entered only serve to inform the reader. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  18:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 November 2022
Per a discussion at Template:Infobox aircraft engine, please add the following coding to the infobox:

Place the new coding between the lines for "manufacturer" and "designer". Thanks. BilCat (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * please say again where the discussion took place. Your link above is to the template itself.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 13:56, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oops! See WT:AIR. BilCat (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * placed your code above in the [sandbox]. Is that what you're looking to do?  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 03:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


 * No, I wanted it added to Template:Infobox aircraft engine itself. BilCat (talk) 05:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's in the sandbox a) wanted to make sure it's added in the correct place in the correct way, and b) so it can be tested. Have you tested it? and if so, where has it been tested?  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 07:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Ah, sorry. I didn't do a test case before this, but I have now at Template:Infobox aircraft engine/testcases. There was a transcription error where one argument was left out, which made the Manufacturer field displayed in the infobox test whether it was filled in or not. If you want to revert to the first sandbox version, you can see the errors on the test page. I've re-copied the coding from Template:Infobox aircraft type verbatim, and it appears to work correctly now, with all 4 fields filled in, and all 4 blank. Will those tests be sufficient, or do you want me to do some more? Thanks for insisting that I test this. You were right to do so, of course. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 08:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No problemo, much better now. Gone ahead and made the edits to the live template. Let me know if any further tweaks are needed.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 10:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! I'll let you know if it needs any tweaks. BilCat (talk)
 * my pleasure!  Paine  11:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)