Template talk:Infobox aircraft

add "Operational range" parameter due to other vehicle infoboxes

Other vehicle infoboxes (all sorts of cars, ships and even landing craft) all have the "Operational range" paramenter. Please add this parameter aswell so that all readers who visit many vehicle pages and are used to see range information in the top right infobox can quickly access that information instead of having to scroll all the way to the Specifications section in Contents list of aircraft articles (which can be huge, like the 234 Kilobytes huge Concorde article...) and clicking on that. D4n2016 (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The aircraft project consensus is to have a basic infobox and a separate specifications section. Many of the motor vehicle infoboxes are longer than the text in the article, Triumph Trophy is an example. Readers can easily access the specification sections by clicking the link provided in the table of contents which appears automatically in articles with more than four sections (unless it has been deliberately suppressed). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be better to declutter the other vehicle infoboxes by removing their specification parameters entirely and including them in the article body. Infoboxes are supposed to summarize article contents, and are not supposed to include detailed lists of technical data. - ZLEA T\C 20:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's happened to unit cost?

There used to be a |unit cost= parameter. It seems to have disappeared, but I can't find any reference to this. Now we're seeing bulk edits like this that are discarding a load of significant content. Why? @Zackmann08: Andy Dingley (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: I am working on cleaning out unknown parameter categories (in this case Category:Pages using infobox aircraft with unknown parameters (0). The information I removed was not being displayed on the page. My review of the template’s edit history did not reveal that |unit cost=, |cost= or |program cost= had EVER been displayed on the page. I have no skin in this game when it comes to what is displayed on this template. If the decision is made to restore it to the infobox I can always bulk revert the edits. That isn’t a problem. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:41, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There used to be such a parameter (it's mentioned in the talk: archives). If you're bulk removing so many instances of it, isn't that a hint that something more than just a few typos is going on? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience of cleaning out hundreds of these categories, it means that a parameter has been removed from the template and transclusions never updated. Which is exactly what happened here… Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:50, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Dingley I believe the decision to remove the "unit cost" parameter was made in this discussion from 2021. TLDR, unit costs of aircraft (especially military aircraft) are more often than not too complicated to summarize in an infobox, and that's before you consider economic factors such as inflation. Such information, so long as it doesn't violate WP:COST, is more suitable for the article body than the infobox. - ZLEA TǀC 22:54, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So the action instead is just to delete it altogether, because that's easier? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much. The purpose of an infobox is to summarize the article. If information can't be accurately summarized into a few words, then it's not fit for the infobox. - ZLEA TǀC 22:58, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is also the issue of WP:NOTPRICE, which is policy, stating that an article should not include product pricing or availability information (which can vary widely with time and location) unless there is an independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention, which may be indicated by mainstream media sources or books (not just product reviews) providing commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. To have an entire infobox parameter that encourages the widespread violation of policy is not a good idea. - ZLEA TǀC 23:02, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And yet this edit is removing those cases where unit_cost was provided concisely and comprehensively sourced. This is not a good outcome. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you missed the "WP:NOTPRICE is policy" part. If you feel unit cost information that has encyclopedic significance for the mention (as described in the policy) is being removed, there is nothing stopping you from evaluating each instance on a case-by-case basis and restoring the information in the article body. However, I think most people would agree that a vast majority of cases are indeed unencyclopedic. - ZLEA TǀC 23:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should read WP:NOTPRICE? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:48, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll quote it here again in case there's still any confusion, An article should not include product pricing or availability information (which can vary widely with time and location) unless there is an independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention, which may be indicated by mainstream media sources or books (not just product reviews) providing commentary on these details instead of just passing mention (emphasis mine). If you want to make the case that the parameter that was removed years ago for violating policy does not, in fact, violate policy please do so (preferably at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft here the discussion that led to its removal took place). Otherwise, please stop wasting our time. - ZLEA TǀC 00:09, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't tell the difference between "iPhone 17 costs $300 at Amazon but Phones 'r Us has them for $280 this week" and this:
HP Victor |unit cost= £300,000 – £400,000 (1953) <ref>Sidney, William (Lord De L'Isle and Dudley) (17 February 1953). "Supply of Aircraft". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). cc463.</ref>
then I can't help you. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:10, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From an encyclopedic standpoint, there is no difference. Both are trivia that, at best, should be discussed in the article body in exceptional cases or left out entirely. Again, if you want to change the consensus on this, please make an actual effort to do so. Otherwise, please stop wasting our time. - ZLEA TǀC 18:00, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Status of merge

@GKNishimoto, Phuzion, ZLEA, Steelpillow, and Prarambh20: (and anyone else interested), what is the latest on this merge? It has been ongoing since the April 2022 TFD. Can anyone provide me some sort of status report? Is this ready for conversion from the old infoboxes? Would be great to know what still needs to be done. I know this is a daunting conversion. If someone can take some time to give me a comprehensive status report of where we stand and what still needs to be done, I'd be happy to take this on and get to work! Thanks in advance! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:00, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zackmann08 Template:Infobox aircraft begin still has 9,500 transclusions (compared to 4,760 transclusions of this template). I do have a custom JWB setting to help with the migration, but I don't believe I included Template:Infobox aircraft engine parameters. - ZLEA TǀC 12:45, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to set up an AWB run to make the necessary changes, but having your JWB settings to start as a baseline would be massively useful. Would you be willing to provide those somehow? Phuzion (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ZLEA: that's good to know! Just to clarify, {{Infobox aircraft}} is ready to accept the merge, it is just a matter of taking the time to actually convert transclusions? If so, I'll second what Phuzion said. Happy to do a JWB run myself but probably makes sense to have one person do it otherwise we will get lots of overlap... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Phuzion I just sent you the JWB setting file over Discord. Either that or I sent it to an impostor using your username on the unofficial Wikipedia server. - ZLEA TǀC 17:45, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HAHA! I'm going to let you two handle this, but PLEASE {{ping|Zackmann08}} me if I can help in anyway. Would absolutely love to see this merged. @Phuzion: I would encourage you to consider using a substitution template to make the merge easier. See User:Zackmann08/subst for the one that I'm currently using for a different merge. Happy to help you set it up if that would help ya out. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:48, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You found me! I'll take a look and hopefully I can get this adapted to AWB format quickly. Phuzion (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ZLEA:. See consensus, per closed discussion above, NOT to include the engine template in the main merge. You done good when you didn't! That template needs a separate action to copy across the fields from infobox begin, and any linking pages updating. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:03, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Steelpillow I knew I had a reason for leaving it out, but I created that settings file over a year ago and since forgot. Thanks for reminding me. - ZLEA TǀC 20:05, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that {{Infobox aircraft engine}} is in use by roughly 13% of the ~9,400 pages that use {{Infobox aircraft begin}}. Since consensus is to not merge the engine infobox into the main infobox, what is the gameplan? {{Infobox aircraft engine}} is not in a state where it can stand independently on its own without {{Infobox aircraft begin}}. How would you recommend resolving this? For what it's worth, I should theoretically be able to handle the other 86% of pages with a bot run. Phuzion (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend creating a new infobox with a slightly different name (perhaps Template:Infobox aero engine). After the migration is done, we could WP:ROUNDROBIN the new template's name to "Infobox aircraft engine" if we so prefer. - ZLEA TǀC 22:35, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ZLEA, Zackmann08, and Steelpillow: Have any of you done the aforementioned WP:ROUNDROBIN merge? Given the nature, I think it's worth handling those cases separately. In the meantime, I'm going to file a BRFA to handle the remaining 86% of the pages, I'll update here when that's been filed. Phuzion (talk) 22:53, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:ROUNDROBIN can't happen until all articles using the original Template:Infobox aircraft engine are fully migrated to the new infobox and the former template is redirected to the latter. - ZLEA TǀC 00:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Phuzion: re your recent edit on Smith Termite, |unit_cost= and {{para|program_cost} were removed from {{Infobox aircraft}} per WP:NOTPRICE, so you can delete that when you run your WP:AWB script. - Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:00, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was opting to leave it as an invalid parameter, given that it’s a parameter that has references with some level of frequency. If you think it would be wiser to delete the parameter entirely, I can update my config to change that. It would leave some cruft to clean up in the invalid parameters maintenance category, but I’d rather err on the cautious side. I’ve specifically addressed that issue in my BRFA. Phuzion (talk) 01:06, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly advise removing it. Selfishly I spent considerable time cleaning up the unknown parameters category and it will just create more manual work to be done afterwards. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly do that. Here's a few edits with those parameters removed. Does this look good to you? Phuzion (talk) 02:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great to me! Also I really like how linked each word to a different edit... That humored me.. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:59, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Phuzion: There has been additional discussion on this in the Infobox subsection at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Holding_cell#To_merge. Looking back in time, I see that I had begun work on refactoring {{Infobox aircraft engine}}, with a view to possibly merging it with other engine templates, see User:Steelpillow/test1. Sadly, I no longer have time to take it forward. Of course, anybody else is welcome to. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:09, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE that the consensus discussion has been archived to Template_talk:Infobox_aircraft/Archive_2#Infobox_aircraft_engine. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:00, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ZLEA and Steelpillow: I have been working on this with @Zackmann08, who has incredibly helpfully built User:Phuzion/aircraft which I will be using with my bot for this task. The only thing I'm stuck on now is the |notes= parameter, which I have been unable to find a matching parameter in any of the templates I am going to replace. Are you aware of any usage of this parameter, or is it safe to simply leave it blank moving forward, and allow other editors to use it as they see necessary? Phuzion (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Phuzion It's probably fine to leave it blank. I'm not aware of the previous system having an equivalent to the "notes" parameter, and I'm not sure why it's included in the new infobox. I certainly can't think of a use case for it, but maybe I just have a small imagination. - ZLEA TǀC 22:56, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for the feedback! Phuzion (talk) 23:28, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I actually feel pretty strongly that you should remove the parameter completely from {{infobox aircraft}}. IF it existed in the old template(s) this would be a harder choice as it would result in a potential loss of information during the conversion. But since nothing uses it currently, I would not open it up for future abuse in the form of:
  • A series of unclear footnotes, where people basically footnote the entire infobox instead of individual values. Those footnotes become stale and are never updated
  • People adding a lengthy bit of text in the form of a note that really belongs in the body of the article.
I've been doing a LOT of infobox cleanup and conversions lately and of the 20,000 or so pages I've touched in the last month, I've literally NEVER seen a good use of a notes field in an Infobox... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:32, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Across 4,824 uses of this template, |notes= is used 7 times, or 0.14% of the time. I think this is definitely an example of where WP:BOLD shines, and because of that I have taken the liberty of removing the parameter from the template, and removed the parameter from the 7 pages that were using it.
@Zackmann08 Unless you can think of any other reason, I think I'm good to request another quick trial run at the BRFA, and hopefully be able to fire off the bot in the next day or so. Phuzion (talk) 01:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Phuzion: sounds great to me! go for it. - Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:39, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are the engine articles to use the same (infobox aircraft) template? It has happened at Solar T62. It is not customised for engines, has way too many parameter fields, and I also believe that consensus was not to develop a new template for engines. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:26, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the Solar T62 article is that it was incorrectly using an aircraft infobox so the bot changed it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nimbus: see my comments at the BRFA. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the previous discussion consensus not to include the engine template in this merge, archived here. Getting rid of {{Infobox aircraft begin}} from the engine articles is an entirely separate issue. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox aircraft engine

I have created {{Infobox aero engine}}, which can be WP:ROBIN'd to {{infobox aircraft engine}} when conversion is complete (as suggested by ZLEA). It supports everything supported by {{infobox aircraft begin}} and {{infobox aircraft engine}}. It looks like the subtemplate parameter is not used, so I have removed it from the implementation. I have also changed parameter names to use underscores (as per MOS:INFOBOX) and renamed |type= to |engine_type=.

The action plan is similar to the plan for the previous conversions; rename the parameters as appropriate and use {{infobox aero engine}} directly. Example edit.

I have purposefully not started this thread at Template talk:Infobox aircraft engine or Template talk:Infobox aero engine to keep discussion in one place. It might even be worth centralizing these talk pages. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:23, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion is  Done :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:18, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stellar!!! Great work by all! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:26, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, great work indeed! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:08, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bot run is underway

Thanks everyone for your patience with me on getting these templates merged together. I just wanted to report to everyone that the BRFA was approved, my bot account was granted the flag and I have begun the bot run, and it should be done at some point tonight, I'd estimate somewhere between 02:00-04:00 UTC. Please let me know if you notice anything that requires my attention. Phuzion (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Phuzion (talk) 02:26, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Phuzion! There are a bunch of non-mainspace pages left (list); are you able to take care of those?

I also fixed the unholy abomination that was Akron-class airship, which contained {{infobox aircraft begin}} and {{Infobox ship characteristics}}. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:05, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for handling that one, I meant to sit down and take a look at it but I got distracted.
I can a glance at the non-mainspace pages tomorrow and see if they’re worth doing manual AWB runs on. Phuzion (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They definitely need to be addressed somehow; you can always ask for a scope extension on the talk page of the bot request. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:36, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've handled the ones in User-space manually with AWB on my primary account. There should just be a few left in Template-space at this point (testcases and such). Phuzion (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks clear; thank you! Do you want to do the § Infobox aircraft engine stuff above? Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:59, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should probably have noted: I am happy to do this on with WP:JWB, but I wanted to give you first dibs if you want it :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:01, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to go for it! phuzion (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_aircraft