Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Templates

Overhaul

I am currently working on giving this wikiprojects templates and template section an overhaul. Creating new templates, making sure the existing templates are listed, etc. Feel free to join in! Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that "Airbus aircraft" be retitled "Airbus" in line with the other manufacturers (other than Boeing). Askari Mark | Talk 18:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is what i was actually going to try to get some conesnsus on here. Should navigation templates for comapny specific aircraft be names {{"companyname" aircraft}} or just {{"company name"}}. It is thoretically possible that these companies could have navigation templates for the companies and subsidaries. What does everybody think? - Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I think the templates might be better named "XYZ aircraft" as there are some templates out there for individual corporations themselves and referencing either general corporate information or else a broader range of its products (not just aircraft). Askari Mark | Talk 21:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I think the corporation navtemplates should be purged altogether. Karl Dickman ^talk 01:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the aircraft navigation boxes, such as {{Cessna}} or the ones for corporations? - Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found this template transcluded to the XA-16 article. I {{Subst:}} the template into the article and then went back and reverted the edits. --Born2flie 14:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New template for tagging aircraft or variants in design or development. Examples would be the Bell ARH-70, HH-47, and CH-53K. --Born2flie 14:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Airreg

Template:Airreg has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — A. B. ^(talk) 19:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vickers aircraft

Hi, I wonder if somone could create a Vickers aircraft template? A lot of articles could use it. I don't have a clue how to make one, perhaps I should learn if I knew where to start. Cheers Nimbus227 (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just do what the rest of do - steal one from another company. Seriously. If no one else offers to take this up soon, just send me a list of all the article links that should be included, and I can set a template up. The rest should be pretty simple, mostly just adding in missed links, and adding the template to Vickers pages. - BillCJ (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Engine manufacturer navbox templates

We have some in the project but they don't seem to be listed here, any objections to adding them under the aircraft manufacturers with a separate heading? Nimbus (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No objection. MilborneOne (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, they seem to have been missed as they are not categorised (yet), they might need a new category. Will list them as I find them. Cheers Nimbus (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organization

Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour/Templates. Would this be useful here? Or is it too much? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox rocket engine

It would be great if this infobox could be modified to include an image and caption, the problem can be seen at Armstrong Siddeley Stentor where I have just added an image. This template does not seem to be on our list and I could not find it in the space project either. Nimbus (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a relatively new template; we discussed it a little on the WP:AIR talk page a few weeks back. It poses an interesting problem, as its layout is fundamentally different from the (idiosyncratic) way we document piston and turbine engines, but fits well with Wikipedia infoboxes more generally. I'll see if I can come up with something that will allow the template to be switched between the two formats (and include a picture!). --Rlandmann (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, thought it was new, can also understand the need for consistency. Nimbus (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested template and category

I wonder if someone could create a template for aircraft engines without (or missing) specifications based on {{aero-specs}} probably and a category 'Aircraft engines without specifications' to go with it. I looked at doing it but the coding was too much!! Cheers. Nimbus (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did both BTW! Can be found here. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Aviation_accidents_and_incidents}} and kin at TFD

See Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_July_7#Template:Aviation_accidents_and_incidents.LeadSongDog come howl 21:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft manufacturer navbox titles?

Hello folks, seems like I am typing away merrily again! I've been tweaking some navboxes and I noticed a potential problem with some of the titles. Many navboxes have a title that says 'aircraft produced (or built, should be one or the other) by the ACME aircraft company'. The problem is that many of the boxes contain unbuilt types or aircraft that were designed but then built by another company. I can see editors removing types by adhering to the title criteria. I would personally prefer to shorten the titles (to what they were originally?) to just 'ACME aircraft' with possibly a no-wiki note in the template code. This is a particular problem with the companies like de Havilland, Hawker Siddeley, Handley Page etc that were merged eventually in to British Aerospace. The British Aerospace BAe 125 is an example, only the prototypes were built by DH. I have arranged the navboxes chronologically. Any thoughts? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The nav boxes I have made have always been like Template:Blue Yonder Aviation and Template:Mooney Airplane Company - simpler, cleaner and less subjcet to hair-splitting.- Ahunt (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do think they were shorter originally but have crept a bit, I will 'adjust' some of them, if there are any objections they can be discussed here. When there are a lot of navboxes stacked with long titles then the 'navbox clutter' gets even more cluttered. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this page have a shortcut for edit summaries, can't see it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under 'history'? - Ahunt (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm lost? I think it should be WT:AVTM to line up with WP:AVTM, just not been created yet. I've shortened some of the titles, to be fair 'aircraft produced by ACME' was the original title in many cases, just different styles which I suggest should be standardised. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, just using e.g. "ACME aircraft" doesn't remove the ambiguity entirely: The Short Brothers template (one of the "Aircraft produced by ..." variety) includes aircraft produced by Shorts under licence from e.g. English Electric and Bristols and these are clearly identified as such by an entry in the first column of the template. Are they "Shorts Brothers aircraft"? There are several Shorts 'aircraft' which never got beyond the "Preliminary Design" stage, so the proposed change would cater better for them. Whatever is decided, if the template content is clear about the subdivisions/categories (e.g. "built under licence", "design studies" etc.) the title is secondary; perhaps it's a case of the shorter the better.

Yep, we are getting there, very much better than what we had not so long ago. I think we are at a stage where we have rounded up most of the types into navboxes and now they are getting refined. I think there is actually an ACME aircraft template BTW! {{RRaeroengines}} is set out as you suggest and is pretty stable now. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for Gliders request

I have a request for a template to be used for gliders/sailplanes and transport gliders. Yes i know most thingsd are available in extant templates but not all in one place. I think this needs doing because many of the important attributes of a glider are not covered well in aircraft templates/ Something like this would be nice or an aircraf ttemplate that included them all would be ok.

Sport Glider/Sailplane specs template

Crew
Span
Length
Height
Wing Area
Aspect Ratio
Aerofoil Root
Aerofoil Mid
Aerofoil Tip
Washout
Empty weight
Loaded Weight
Ballast
Wing Loading (Loaded Weight)
Wing Loading (Loaded + Ballast)
Vne
g limits
min sink rate
min sink airspeed
Best L/D ratio (Loaded)
Best L/D airspeed (Loaded)
Best L/D ratio (Loaded + Ballast)
Best L/D airspeed (Loaded + Ballast)

Transport Glider specs template

Crew
Capacity
Span
Length
Height
Wing Area
Aspect Ratio
Aerofoil Root
Aerofoil Mid
Aerofoil Tip
Washout
Empty weight
Loaded Weight
Useful Load
Wing Loading (Loaded Weight)
Vne
g limits
min sink rate
min sink airspeed
Best L/D ratio (Loaded)
Best L/D airspeed (Loaded)

Petebutt (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'G' or 'g'

Time and again I come across editors/writers who have mis-used g.

Lower case 'g' is for gravity and multiples thereof. It is alrady a plural and does not require pluralising (colonial cousins take note), thus ten x gravity is '10g' and NOT 10g's. Similarly the capital 'G' is the gravitational constant which is something else altogether. Please can we have templates accurately reflecting this!!!!!!!Petebutt (talk) 11:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specification template for type series

I have been looking at the Tecnam pages, particularly the P92, which has seen a bewildering number of variants in the past 6 or 7 years. It would be a fantastic service to the Wikipedia community to be able to include a template for the specifications that allowed the reader immediately to see what changed from one variant to the next. In the talk page, one contributor's view is that the variants are different models, yet the physical differences between some of them are based only on qualifying the same aircraft to different countries' regulations. Other changes are much more substantial. This would be of serious value also in comparing older aircraft models such as the Cessna 150, 172 etc. rather than asking the reader to go through all the explanatory text of which model introduced what feature. Altaphon (talk) 06:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't consider a dozen types bewildering, but why not just turn the list into a table with a few fields covering major changes - say year, span, seats, no. engines? I have seen that done before, such as with AB Thulinverken. - NiD.29 (talk) 09:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tables are the more flexible answer. You can show what's changed and what hasn't. Other articles (I thought of [table on Avro Vulcan variants] which appears below specifications on that article.). As ever the content should be focussed on what is of relevance to the reader and in a format the is legible to reader. If it can be done with Spitfire variants: Supermarine Spitfire variants: specifications, performance and armament it should be possible with most other aircraft. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

template:3-view

Wondering why this exists and is anyone still using it? It just seems to display the image without a border or caption, without any savings in typing. - NiD.29 (talk) 09:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]