Template talk:Infobox rocket launch

Major changes to avoid infobox bloating
The previous version of this infobox template was simply too big. Unneeded cells, cells better utilized as one split unnecessarily into two, and cells irrelevant to articles on rocket launches or redundant to other templates and articles overpopulate this template to the point where if all these cells are used, it would potentially overlap an entire article, let alone multiple sections of an article. So, here's what I've fixed to ensure the infobox is as small as possible while still relaying the most essential information that readers with a casual interest in rocket launches can understand:

– PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 11:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Parameter and cell names have been simplified. e.g.  is now   and "Payload adaptors" is now "Adaptors". This is to ensure cell headers and data are more likely to appear in a single line. Parameter names and cell names have been harmonised.
 * and  have been merged into a single   cell. There's no reason for these to be separate when they can be formatted into a single line without losing any information.  and   have been merged into   for similar reasons.
 * has been removed, as the number of the flight will almost certainly have been in the page title and repeated in the infobox title. No need to be repeated a second time.
 * has been moved to the "Components" section, as it pertains to the construction of the rocket used for a flight.
 * and  have been removed as it is redundant to Infobox rocket and articles about the rockets themselves. The manufacturer and assembly facility of a rocket is unlikely to change from the norm outlined in their respective articles for a single flight, and if so, can be noted in the article prose instead.
 * ,,  ,  ,  , and   have been removed. There are no major rockets with more than three stages as far as I'm aware.   and   are redundant to the already existing stage parameters, and the difference in fairings used are always distinguished by the name of the rocket variant, e.g. the Atlas V 401 has a different fairing to the Atlas V 501, and thus is redundant to.
 * and  have been moved up into the main group of cells as the very first cell. It's hard to argue that the date and time of a launch isn't the most important information for a casual reader.   has also been renamed , since the input is intended to not only be a date, but a time as well.
 * ,, and   have been removed. The lack of a documentation for this template doesn't make it easy to understand what these cells are even for. I'd imagine   would be used to signify which aeroplane a spacecraft was launched from in an atmospheric launch, such as Virgin Galactic flights, but I doubt articles on those sorts of missions wouldn't use Infobox spaceflight instead.
 * has been converted into a cell. There is no reason to have an entire section of an infobox dedicated to a single parameter, much like how you wouldn't have an entire sub-section of an article for one sentence. Multiple payloads can use Unbulleted list formatting to better distinguish the payloads from one another.
 * The "Target orbit" section has been removed in its entirety. These cells are redundant to Catalogued spacecraft, which can be used in the article prose, and the "Orbital parameters" section of Infobox spaceflight in the articles for the payloads. Information about a payload's orbit or trajectory would be better suited for the payload's article itself, especially when multiple payloads are launched in a single flight.
 * The parameters for a display of an insignia have been removed, as the insignia can be displayed as the infobox's lead image instead as the most identifiable imagery for a particular launch. Typical photographs of rocket launches would be difficult to distinguish from one another, so this has been discouraged in the new documentation.

Changes to serial number cells
Hey there,. to this template which make it hard for editors to easily edit the serial numbers of rocket components used in a launch. to Falcon Heavy test flight indicate that these recent changes have only added more parameters and more templates to achieve essentially the exact same goal that was already achievable with only a few parameters – displaying the serial numbers of the components used on the flight. I want to ask three questions. Firstly, what was wrong with how the previous version handled serial numbers? Secondly, how does it make it easier to edit? Thirdly, does an external template, Infobox rocket launch/stage, have to be used instead of making a single, easy to edit template in Infobox rocket launch? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 07:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

By the way, you've also done this to uses of this template as well, which is also undesirable. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 08:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * What if we have designations of more than three stages? That is why I made a module to support designations of multiple stages, to remove the limitations with three-stage designations.


 * —Your&#39;s sincerely, Soumyabrata (talk) 09:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * If the issue really was a lack of support for a fourth stage, then the simple addition of a "fourth stage" parameter would suffice, no? No need for all these additional templates and parameters, really. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 09:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Just commenting on the preview errors image. That is actually a very desirable feature which is used in many infobox templates, as it lets a user see that they've written an incorrect parameter name, which will not show up in the infobox. Without it, users might not know why a value does not show up in an infobox. It appears it just wasn't set up correctly. --Gonnym (talk) 07:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * These were error messages for correct parameters that worked, however. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 07:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said It appears it just wasn't set up correctly. You just needed to add the ones that were valid. --Gonnym (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * None of them were valid, though. Every single parameter that showed up as an "unknown parameter" were actually valid parameters of the template. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 07:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm really struggling here, as it seems you are either unwilling to actually read what I wrote, twice, or just don't understand how to edit a template. Either way, I'll be leaving this discussion and wish you a good day. --Gonnym (talk) 07:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you considered a third option in which I simply didn't understand what you meant? What is the "it" in "it just wasn't set up correctly"? The words you wrote led me to believe that you're implying that one has to "set up" something that is an automatic, default part of every template with editable parameters. If a user puts a parameter into a template transclusion that isn't part of it's code, the "unknown parameter" will always show up in edit previews by default. It's not something one has to "set up", it's just... there. If this was not the "very desirable feature" you were talking about – the "it" in "it just wasn't set up correctly" – then I obviously don't understand what you're talking about and you need to clarify. Assuming somebody is "unwilling to actually read", or saying somebody "[doesn't] understand how to edit a template" in this circumstance is patently unfair, and I think it's best for me to leave this discussion too if the assumption of good faith is going to be withdrawn for absolutely no apparent good reason. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 08:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)