Template talk:Infobox rocket

Proposed merger

 * The result of the discussion was: No consensus to merge over 2 moths after merger was proposed. - BillCJ 00:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems that Infobox Missile covers much the same content as this template. I am therefore suggesting that it is merged into Infobox rocket. All fields that are not present in this template but are present in Infobox Missile should be transferred as part of the merger process, if approved. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 13:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

In favour of proposal

 * Nominate and support -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 13:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - much overlap jwillburtalk 15:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - We don't need 2 templates for one thing, there is also a weaponry template that this whould fit into. -Flubeca (t) 15:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Against proposal

 * 1) Though I think it would be possible, I don't really see the direct need. Do we need to mix up 2 templates that are used in such distinct types of topics (space vs. weapons) ? I'm all for merging templates that duplicate functionality, but only if it really serves a purpose of usefulness, and I have some doubt about the usefulness of this merge --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: Which template should be used on Titan II? -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 19:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. One is a weapon, the other is not. Keep them separate as a all singing, all dancing template would be too confusing and too cumbersome to use. ThePointblank 21:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm a working aircraft armament technician and both "missile" and "rocket" are armament terms but the space issue aside they should still be kept distinct from each other as a missile is usually defined as being a guided weapon and a rocket is unguided. Of course as mentioned in the general comments any projectile be it powered by its own motor or simply a weapon such as an arrow or slingshot is also described as being a missile.Tarnish 15:31, 25 June 2007 (GMT)
 * 3) Oppose. Silly idea, since a missile and a rocket are quite different things. Rockets are not necessarily weapons, and neither are all missiles rockets; the Soyuz is not a weapon and cruise missiles (for example) use jet engines. The differences are such that it makes as much sense to use a single infobox for cars and aircraft. Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 16:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Not the same function.CyrilleDunant 13:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - as above. Also, hasn't this gone on long enough? Time to close. - BillCJ 05:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

next vote to oppose

General comments
Issues of merging aside, would it be possible to convert the infobox(es) to use WPMILHIST Infobox style as part of this process? Kirill Lokshin 16:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think I quite understand how that works. Could you please produce an example of how it would be implemented in this situation. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 20:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Like TheDJ said, would we use that infobox for both military and non-military articles? Technically, a bolt fired from a crossbow is a missile, but I understand both POVs. It could work if there was an infobox exclusively for use in military articles, and another inforbox exclusively for use in non-military articles. --MKnight9989 12:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The purpouse of this merger would be to create a universal template for both military and civil rockets/missiles, due to an extensive overlap between the two applications. Conditional statements would be used to ensure only relevent information is shown. I will try to make a quick example, to show some of its applications. The universal template would be used for all rocket-propelled missiles, sounding rockets and carrier rockets. Seeing as Infobox missile is not used on crossbow, I don't think your concern over the classification of crossbow bolts is relevant. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 19:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Payloads sample
Is there a complete rocket infobox on wikipedia.org to use as a sample? I am having some troubles deciding what to put in categories such as:

|capacities = ??

|location = what form should this be?

|stagedata = ??

It's not clear whether the sub-infobox is effectively what goes after the equals sign in the cases of capacities and stagedata

Thank you, Fotoguzzi (talk) 09:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The "capacities" and "stagedata" sections contain one or more subpage templates, as shown in the instructions. Location should be linked to the appropriate regime (eg Low Earth orbit), and should use the abbreviated format (eg. LEO), so in the case of payload to low Earth orbit, the content would be LEO . Scout X-2 uses the new format. -- G W … 10:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate the the note! Fotoguzzi (talk) 10:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Is |total parameter working?
I cannot get |total to show up--even if I add the text myself. Can someone pleas let me know what is the current status of total? Fotoguzzi (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Assuming you are referring to the infobox on your userpage, the "type" parameter is case sensitive and must be in lower case ("booster" not "Booster"), otherwise it defaults to "stage" (which does not use the "total" parameter). -- G W … 15:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, again. I had thought I had found something that worked with Booster and not with booster, but now I don't know what that was. But my real confusion is that I thought that stage would show total, also. It would be nice to be able to have a total for each stage, but I can understand that it gets complicated to show this in infobox form. Fotoguzzi (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't need it. Why can't you use the "thrust" parameter? -- G W … 07:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice to be able to say something like:


 * No boosters = 2
 * Motors per booster = 2
 * thrust per motor = 333 kN
 * thrust per booster = 666 kN <- i guess this is necessary
 * total for stage 0 = 1332 kN
 * No first stage engines = 3
 * thrust per engine = 333 kN
 * total for first stage = 1000 kN

Ideally, the launch vehicle page would be getting data from the booster page which would be in line with with the booster motor page. I realize that there are always going to be exceptions as more and more hybrid ideas are thrown into space. And if total _can_ do this for stages, I must be doing something wrong. Thanks yet again! Fotoguzzi (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't thrust per engine excessive? We can't put everything in the infobox - it would end up longer than the article. The engine name should be linked, and the thrust per engine provided in the engine's page. -- G W … 17:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

country-origin when there is no single country?
A question popped up in Talk:Ariane_5 and I too wonder: what if several countries/a union of countries are involved in the development of a rocket? Could the "country-origin" parameter be changed to "origin"? -- 194.246.122.11 (talk) 06:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree. There is another section, below, where this got proposed to be addressed in 2018.  N2e (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

What is syntax for multiple payload capacities?
How does one specify more than one infobox subtemplate under the capacities entry? I tried it and it totally messed up the infobox. Is there some kind of separater between, parentheses around, etc? Or is the option of using more than one not working? Thanks. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

total program cost line
Is this the correct syntax to add it ? I try to have the same line as in Template:Infobox aircraft Thanks in advance, i would like to avoid a mistake.

---in documentation :


 * program cost  =

---in source :

Copy "cost per launch" item, replacing cpl with pcosts

--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

New section for landings?
With Falcon 9 FT having 2 of 3 attempted landings being successful, this might usefully be a line in the infobox. While this does not yet apply to many rockets, there is New Shepard and Grasshopper and maybe more will follow like Falcon 9 Heavy. Should this be added? crandles (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ in April following your suggestion. — JFG talk 11:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Code refactored
I refactored the backend code to use infobox which allows for more robust parameter handling and uniform formatting. as far as I can tell there was no change in the overall appearance of the output. let me know if you see any problems and we can create more testcases and fix the bugs. Frietjes (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Great job, thanks! A reader recently noted that the long sections for various stages are hard to distinguish and I agree. I think this issue could be handled by adding a tiny bit of spacing above the section titles, e.g. "Size", "Capacity", "First stage", "Second stage", etc. Is it something we can do just for rockets or should we push the request onto the generic Infobox template? Surely this step would benefit all kinds of long infoboxes. Another option would be to decorate the stage sections, e.g. display something like "––– First stage – Blok I –––"; that would be easy to do in just the rocket templates. Your opinion is welcome. — JFG talk 03:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * JFG, I added some horizontal visual section dividers. feel free to revert/modify if you don't like them. Frietjes (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I for one think the dividing lines enhance readability; I like it. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Last flight ≠ final flight
We have now "first flight" and "last flight" parameters, with the documentation stating that "last flight" should be used for the final flight of a particular rocket or version, which implies that this field should only be used for retired rockets. This has several drawbacks: For these reasons, I suggest updating the documentation to mention that "last flight" should contain the date of the latest flight, and optionally a link to the page describing this flight. If the rocket is retired, that would be its very last flight. The ambiguity of the "last" term in English is resolved by the "Active" or "Retired" rocket status. If this is approved, then we can just start populating the last flight dates on currently active rockets and keep maintaining this information whenever a new launch occurs. — JFG talk 04:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Readers can't see at a glance when the rocket was last launched, arguably a more interesting information than the date of its maiden flight.
 * Effective retirement of rockets can often be determined with certainty only years after the fact (see for example Zenit-2M which I recently marked retired although I could only find indirect references, so veering close to WP:OR territory).
 * When updating launch counts in the infobox, it would be simpler to avoid errors or duplicate updates if we had a previous page version with a known correct count and latest flight date
 * ✅ Qui ne dit mot consent! — JFG talk 09:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

How to count accidents prior to launch?
Should total launches include rockets lost prior to effective launch, i.e. exploding on the launchpad? This can be treated in several ways: We should agree on a standard way, but which one? And no matter which way, there should be a footnote explaining those special cases. — JFG talk 21:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Include the pad explosion in total launches and add it to launch failures (can't find an example)
 * Include the pad explosion in total launches and add it to the other_outcome field (ex: Falcon 9)
 * Exclude the pad explosion from total launches and add it to launch failures (ex: Soyuz-U)
 * Exclude the pad explosion from total launches and add it nowhere (ex: Vostok-2M)
 * Add a dedicated field for such cases, e.g. "Losses prior to launch"

I agree that there should be a footnote explaining each failure. Instead of totaling launches and launch failures, missions and mission failures could be counted. A pad explosion destroying both rocket and spacecraft is definitely a mission failure. How to count failures is complicated. Mercury-Redstone 1 failed after lift-off but was not damaged and could have flown again. The fire on Apollo 1 destroyed the spacecraft, but the same Saturn 1B flew successfully on Apollo 5. Mattise135 talk 19:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Space X's 11-1-2016 RUD does not count as a launch, but should included as a new category "Losses prior to launch" or "Other losses."Mattise135 (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Mission failure is an important criteria, but this is for a sidebar information on pages describing launch vehicles. The Apollo 1 is a good example of the distinction: It's a very clear mission failure, but had no relation to the launch vehicle. I don't think it would be accurate to include it in information about the Saturn 1B. There are also a long list of spacecraft damaged in pre-launch handling, and that isn't what we're talking about.

I think I'd favor a separate field for something like a pre-launch pad explosion. I think the usual practice (e.g. with the Falcon 9, is launch service providers to exclude pre-launch events when they talk about the "33rd flight" of a particular vehicle. If we count total launches differently, it will cause confusion. Fcrary (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

According to the wording from the NASA website launch 1. The action taken in launching a rocket from the surface. 2. The resultant of this action, i.e., the transition from static repose to dynamic flight by the rocket. So on September 1, 2016, there was no launch.

And to eliminate differences in the numbering of launches with the site Reddit SpaceX and Falcon9 launches Wiki, it is desirable - Add a dedicated field for such cases, e.g. "Losses prior to launch" and Exclude the pad explosion Falcon 9 from total launches. Dekosoft7 (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. We should note somewhere that "Losses prior to launch" means loss of payload or complete loss of the launch vehicle (i.e. something bad enough to count as a mission failure.) I'm relatively new to Wikipedia editing. At what point should we go ahead and make this change? Fcrary (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to all who commented. There seems to be a clear consensus to exclude such failures from the launch total and to create a dedicated field to document rocket losses on the launch pad. I will work on the template in the coming days to implement this. — JFG talk 01:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Mass confusion
The Infobox rocket contains the following description as of December 2017:

Do we have consensus on whether this is the "dry mass" (unfueled mass) or the "wet mass" (fully fueled)?

And question no. 2, if fully fueled, does it include the total "liftoff mass"; i.e., with the payload included? ... should payload mas not be included? Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The stage-by-stage section has fields for dry, wet and propellent mass. For some reason the part on the rocket as a whole doesn't. But I think the real deficiency is that it doesn't specify what sort of mass it is. We shouldn't leave that ambiguous. Fcrary (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree Fcrary. Have you edited the wikisyntax code for a complicated template like this?  I just took a look at it and fear I'd muck it up.  But change is warranted, methinks.  N2e (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * No, I'm afraid I've never done that sort of thing before. I'd hoped someone with more experience would notice and take care of it. Fcrary (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Country of origin... for mixed parentage rockets and launch vehicles
There is a discussion going on over at Talk:Electron (rocket) about the "country of origin" line that is implicitly enforced through the appearance of this tag in the   infobox.

It would appear that the construction / parms of this infobox may be implicitly enforcing something for which we don't really have good support for continuing on into the future.

In my view, there are many manufactured goods, not just the Electron rocket, where parts and major subassemblies are made across many borders of traditional nation states. Our job in writing verified statements about such in Wikipedia is simply to say what we can source.

Thus, it could be that the whole "single country of origin" construct that is semi-enforced by that particular infobox ({Infobox rocket ...}) is simply an anachronism, one that we will have to (gradually) get over as various rockets are made of parts from various countries. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I made that comment over on Talk:Electron... and then, Rowan Forest added:


 * I agree in that if the company (and components) is multinational, we could just say that, and add that the company is based in US. -Rowan Forest (talk) 01:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * We can keep discussing this elsewhere and see what consensus might be reached, but it may be that a proposal to deprecate the whole single country of origin thing in the INFOBOX ROCKET might be a worthwhile proposal in the future. So, just leaving this note here to call it to the attention of any followers of the Talk page on this Infobox.  N2e (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Infobox rocket/stage ... fuel? or propellant?
In the Infobox rocket/stage subsection of the template, the propellants are currently (Jan 2019) specified on a single line with the parameter ""

This seems to be incorrect as the way the template is used requires that this single line in the template contain both the rocket fuel and the oxidizer; i.e., it should be " ", not " ". Rocket propellant article clearly explicates the difference between "propellant" (the reaction mass of the rocket) and "fuel" which makes up only one component of the fuel/oxidizer mix common in most liquid fueled rocket engines.

I would propose we use the term "propellant" to refer to the propellant and reserve "fuel" only for when it refers to only the fuel component, and not to both fuel and oxidizer as it does in most uses of this template. (e.g., on Delta IV Heavy article as of Jan 2019). Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree. Propellent also covers monopropellents, such as the optional third stage on an Electron. And when and if someone ever flies a nuclear thermal rocket, it would have neither fuel nor oxidizer. Just a working mass (adequately described as propellent) heated by a reactor. Fcrary (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree. Electric propulsion systems don't use fuel. Propellant works for them, too. Mattise135 (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed, and done. I've made the change here (don't know why it wasn't done before). I just discovered that rocket stage is a separate template, so I'm going to do that too. JustinTime55 (talk) 23:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I came here to make this suggestion after looking at Space Shuttle. What's the proper way to fix the propellant parameters for that? I think maybe the usage section needs updated here, to include the propellant parameter, if that was added. Happy to help with whatever works, and I can track down a parameter usage report and make sure that we are consistently using the parameters correctly once that is cleared up. Thanks for making the change.  Kees08  (Talk)   06:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Multiple variation of engines
What if a rocket stage has more than one type of engines? —Your&#39;s sincerely, Soumyabrata (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * One would use Template:Plainlist to list the Engines field. Do you have an actual example in mind of such a rocket stage in existence? JustinTime55 (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think this should be done, but in case you wanted a weird special case for funsies, the Space Shuttle fired the OMS thrusters for extra kick on the orbital insertion burn sometimes. Not aware of any 'real' cases off the top of my head.  Kees08  (Talk)   06:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * SpaceX Starship (the second stage/spacecraft) uses two variants of the SpaceX Raptor on each flight. -Arch dude (talk) 00:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

cpl-year displays wrongly
In a current thread in WP:Reference desk/Science, someone reports what they think is an error in SpaceX Starship, and another person and I have responded as shown here:


 * In the table: "cost per year: 2019"59.153.241.128 (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It was added on April 2, and I'm not so sure it was a mistake, just peculiar wording. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like an error in Template:Infobox rocket. The parameters cpl and cpl-year are documented as meaning "cost per launch" and "year of stated cost per launch" respectively, but they display as two rows in a table, labeled Cost per launch (in this case, "$2 million (anticipated)") and Cost per year (in this case "2019").  If it's really worthwhile having an entry for the date of this particular data item, then it obviously should display in the same row, which would appear as something like "Cost per launch: $2 million (anticipated) (2019 data)".  I'll post a note on the talk page for that template. --76.71.5.208 (talk) 06:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Can someone knowledgeable about templates please deal with this? --76.71.5.208 (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

"Template:Infobox missile" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Infobox missile. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 24 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 16:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The difference between cost and price
In this age of commercial launch services we often don't have reliable sources for the cost of a launch, but we may have a nominal price. Perhaps a |price flag should be added to "cpl" ? Stgpcm (talk) 09:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata integration
Hey, just a head up that this template currently have a fully-functional opt-in Wikidata templates, and opt-out for some parameters (currently only name and functions). You can opt-in via instructions at Template:Infobox rocket/Wikidata (currently being written). A note that for the opt-in option, Wikidata properties can change quite a bit during this phase, so please only use it in drafts and sandboxes. These articles are currently in article main space and being opt-in:
 * SpaceX Starship
 * New Glenn
 * Rocket Lab Neutron

A prime example of Wikidata integration is SpaceX Starship. Currently, these languages have Wikidata infobox to some capacity:
 * el:SpaceX Starship
 * en:SpaceX Starship
 * fa:اسپیس‌اکس استارشیپ
 * id:SpaceX Starship
 * nl:Starship (SpaceX)
 * pt:SpaceX Starship
 * SpaceX Starship
 * สตาร์ชิปสเปซเอ็กซ์
 * SpaceX Starship
 * SpaceX星艦
 * and more at meta:Wikidata integration of Template:Infobox rocket

Also on an unrelated note, currently the function parameter is very inconsistent, sometimes it shows what type of the rocket is it, and sometimes about it's actual purpose, as well as conflicting definitions of classifying rockets based on lift capability. For example, super heavy-lift is considered to be over 50 tons in United States or 100 tons in Russia. Because of that, Wikidata leans toward its actual functions to remain consistent across languages. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * You can help accelerate the transition by:
 * Importing information to Wikidata (guide pending)
 * Replace legacy infoboxes with newer nested infobox
 * Try it out! See how the template broke and report to me
 * Tell others to join in
 * If you are a good template editor in your native language, please convert legacy infoboxes to nested ones (with compatibility), or make a wrapper like in Template:Infobox rocket/Wikidata. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This template was improperly pulling unsourced values from Wikidata. All Wikidata-based information in infoboxes must have a reliable source, per this 2018 RFC. I have adjusted the template to conform with the RFC. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Initial rollout
Wikidata is now opt-out by adding values. In this phase, legacy parameters (e.g. |boostername=) is still supported, but will be depreciated in the next version. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you think that releasing this template to public domain?
My rationale being that this template will be used in many, many other Wikipedias, and attributing would be pretty impractical. I know that you guys wouldn't gonna sue me cough Blue Origin cough but by doing so it would solve a lot of issues. Also, I release all my contributions to public domain + PD-0.

Notify recent editors that is active and not banned (since notifying all can be pretty rude and unnecessary): @Skrelk @JustinTime55 @DocWatson42 @Ahwiv @Primefac CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia contributors license their content using a license called the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), which allows reuse of text either in its original form or with modifications provided that certain conditions are met. There are hundreds of web sites that do this. A list of some of them is available here: WP:FORK. While we encourage all reusers to comply with the requirements of CC-BY-SA, including proper attribution for authors, we are aware of the fact that many web sites do not do so correctly. Primefac (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think that I have misunderstood CC-BY-SA then, I thought that you must share things 100% as-is. Sorry for annoying you guys and thanks for your clarification. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Data for stages should be unique
When data is provided via Wikidata all stages gets filled with same information. How to make data unique per stage and how to avoid auto filling? suppressfields parameter doesn't seem to work. Elk Salmon (talk) 11:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Why does it say “has use”?
Could we rename that parameter to “function” or “designed use” or something a bit less awkward? 107.190.68.75 (talk) 05:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)