Template talk:Infobox aircraft type

Infobox Aircraft

(Orignally from Template:Infobox Aircraft/doc)

This infobox is used to summarize an aircraft's key points. It is not used for dimensions or performance; for that, use {{Aircraft specifications}}.

Only |name=, |type=, and |manufacturer= are required fields. All others are optional, though some have guidelines you should follow to achieve the best, most consistent appearance.

{{Infobox Aircraft Type
|type           = <!-- REQUIRED - aircraft's role -->
|national origin = <!-- Use the main nation (ie. UK), not constituent country (England); don't use "EU". List collaborative programs of only 2 or 3 nations; for more than 3, use "Multi-national:. -->
|manufacturer   = <!-- REQUIRED -->
|designer       = <!--Only appropriate for single designers, not project leaders-->
|first flight   = <!--If this hasn't happened, skip this field!-->
|introduction   = <!--Date the aircraft is to enter military or revenue service; use sparingly. -->
|introduced     = <!--Date the aircraft entered military or revenue service -->
|retired        = <!--Date the aircraft left service. If vague or more than a few dates, skip this -->
|status         = <!--In most cases, redundant; use sparingly -->
|primary user   = <!-- List only one user; for military aircraft, this is a nation or a service arm. Please DON'T add those tiny flags, as they limit horizontal space. -->
|more users     = <!-- Limited to THREE (3) 'more users' here (4 total users).  Separate users with <br/>. -->
|produced       = <!--Years in production (eg. 1970-1999) if still in active use but no longer built -->
|number built   = <!--Number of flight capable aircraft completed, for aircraft under development or still in production only those aircraft that have flown should be included. -->
|program cost   = <!--Total program cost-->
|unit cost      = <!--Incremental or flyaway cost for military or retail price for commercial aircraft -->
|developed from = <!--The aircraft which formed the basis for this aircraft -->
|variants with their own articles = <!--Variants OF this aircraft -->
|developed into = <!--For derivative aircraft based on this aircraft -->
}}

Possible Updates

Equipment Codes

Would it be useful to add Equipment Codes to show the ICAO / IATA codes for airliners e.g. A320/320? Marcfarrow (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I was just thinking about this. I'd love to see the ICAO type designator somewhere in the articles. If no one objects, I'll add an optional entry to the template? (Yeah, OK, I'm four years late for the last comment...) arnoha (talk) 05:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that needs to be in the infobox. I can't think of any airliner article that lists those codes anywhere in the article, but there may be some somewhere. Probably best to get a wider consensus at WT:AIR coverage in the main texts of articles, but I don't see the infobox idea being approved. But you never know. - BilCat (talk) 05:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I just stumbled across this because I had the same idea about adding in ICAO codes for the aircraft due as I often will look for information on an aircraft ironically on Wikipedia as its often the first link that comes up. It can also reference the List_of_aircraft_type_designators page here and make wikipedia more connected. Funforme3 (talk) 04:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

"Developed into" parameter undocumented?

Why is the parameter "Developed into" undocumented? Was this a mere oversight, or is its use not encouraged? --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

What about multiple important users with no single one dominant?

The insistence on a single "Primary user", followed by "More users", doesn't fit situations where an aircraft had multiple major users of comparable importance. In fact, this rule seems to be violated in some articles (e.g. Douglas DC-2). Should the documentation be updated? --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Normally one user can be found as the primary user, for civil aircraft it is normally an airline based on the quantity operated. In practice it is also the largest user for military aircraft. Perhaps the instructions need to be tweaked to reflect what is actually done! MilborneOne (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As you said, the instructions need tweaking. But I would question that one can "normally" find a single primary user—there are too many cases where one can't be singled out, though multiple major users can. This is especially true for a successful airliner, which multiple major airlines would buy in quantity. Even before World War II, who would you consider to be the primary user of the DC-3? American Airlines, who ordered it first? What about United Airlines, TWA, and Eastern Air Lines? It's true that military aircraft normally have a single primary user, usually the country that built or ordered the aircraft. But even these have important exceptions: who would be the primary user of a multinational aircraft like the Panavia Tornado or the Eurofighter Typhoon? --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Which is why in most cases we use size but I understand your point. Perhaps we just need a different title other than primary user we can use in such circumstances perhaps Launch customer then use other users and not use the primary field? MilborneOne (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"Introduction" vs "Introduced"

For aircraft not yet introduced (e.g. Sukhoi PAK FA) it makes little sense to say "Introduced 2013 (planned)". If the table said "Introduction 2013 (planned)" it would read far better - and that wording also makes sense for historic aircraft. Oddly enough the parameter in the template seems to be named "Introduction", can word in the table not be "Introduction" as well? TheGrappler (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It may be that I am not understanding all the available parameters - is there an essentially defunct, but undocumented, "introduced" parameter as well as the "introduction" one? TheGrappler (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is available and I have changed the infobox on Sukhoi PAK FA. Should only be used until it is actually introduced! MilborneOne (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - are you sure of "should only be used until it is actually introduced" though? "Introduction" works just as well if the aircraft is already in service, or if it is only expected to occur in the future. For what it's worth, the template documentation here just lists the parameter "introduction: Date the aircraft entered or will enter military or revenue service", which suggests it should be used in all cases, whereas "introduced" is undocumented. Not saying that you are wrong, but if you are right, should the documentation for this template be corrected? TheGrappler (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Evolution

Infobox should contain information about its place in aviation evolution; which aircraft does it supercede and which supercedes it. (predecessor, successor). Compare with Template:Infobox automobile . TGCP (talk) 06:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

That's been discussed before and rejected, probably on either the WT:AIR or WT:AIR/PC talk pages. I'm headed to bed now, but I'll try and look for it tomorrow if I can, as my health is still acting up. - BilCat (talk) 08:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Latest mention seems to be Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/Archive_11#non-specifications_.7B.7BInfobox_Aircraft.7D.7D back in 2006, but not really discussed. Searching through archives is cumbersome, is there a clever way to do it ? TGCP (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Type vs Role

This infobox (and hence articles using it) uses the terms Type and Role as if they are interchangeable, but they have distinct meanings. For example the RQ-4 article currently says "Role: Unmanned aerial vehicle", but its role is really surveillance. I think the infobox should have separate Type (mandatory) and Role parameters. For some aircraft it might be appropriate to use both parameters - e.g. "Type: Helicopter (tandem rotors)", "Role: SAR / Military transport". Anybody agree/disagree ? DexDor (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be easier to add "type" to "role", which I have done now. Hopefully that will end the issue. - BilCat (talk) 23:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I note that RL has reverted my change without commenting here. This probably means that DexDor will resume removing the "types" from the infoboxes again. Sigh! Do rwe really need two separate fields for this sort of info? - BilCat (talk) 11:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Not been a huge issue up to now I cant remember any previous problems with this field. It is just as a quick headline description in the infobox and not a scientific analysis of the aircraft role or configuation. Perhaps we should just change it to "Description". MilborneOne (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

"Description" would work for me, but it might be too vague for others. - BilCat (talk) 12:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought displaying "Role/type" was a good solution – it matches Template:Infobox aircraft type which says "The aircraft's role and/or type" and what editors have put into this field. DexDor (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Dex.It's my preferred solution to, though "Description" would work for me also. - BilCat (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry; I should have been more clear. As I said in the edit summary: 'reverting to "Role"; I think an ambiguous label makes things even less clear.' IMHO, the problem with "role/type" is that it dilutes the field too much -- since this is a label, it's best to keep it sharp and focused. In principle, I think "description" would be better, but in practice, I wonder how that would get abused. I would hate to see sentences starting to appear in there.

The underlying problem of course, is that "type" is an overloaded term with far too many possible meanings.

My sense is that the field has indeed been used pretty consistently for "role" -- certainly, that's what the examples have suggested for years now, and which the template documentation stated until last week (I've just rolled that back pending the outcome of this discussion). I'm willing to do a survey of our articles to gather some usage statistics though. Can we please postpone any change for a week or so to let me gather data?

Questions for the meantime:

1. Am I right in thinking that nobody wants to see this field say simply "flying boat" or "helicopter" or "ultralight" or "UAV"?
2. Am I also right in thinking that nobody has a problem with roles so specific that they include some notion of the category of aircraft? "air-sea rescue flying boat" or "utility helicopter" or "sport ultralight" or "surveillance UAV"?

Assuming that the above two statements are correct, we need to develop three things in concert: the label that appears in the box, the data field in the template code, and the wording of the template documentation.

--Rlandmann (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If I understand your point 2 correctly, the entire reason this thread was started was because Dex objected to "aircraft" or "helicopter" being used with the "Role" label. - BilCat (talk) 07:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation; I only know about this issue by virtue of it hitting the template talk pages -- I have none of the back story! Personally, I have no problem with roles being specific down to the general category of aircraft. DexDor, could you please clarify your position? --Rlandmann (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Q1 - I don't like "Role: Flying boat" as "Flying boat" says nothing about its role. It is an important principle in procurement that when an aircraft (etc) comes to the end of its life its capability (role) is (usually) replaced, but not necessarily by the same type of platform. I've no problem with "Role/type: Flying boat" - for example on the Catalina article, that would be preferable to picking a single role or having a long list of roles in the infobox. Q2 - I don't have such a problem with for example "Role: Rescue helicopter" as it does mention the role. Most articles show Role+Type (including terms such as "fighter" and "airliner") and some show just Type so I support BilCat's change (less disruptive than my original proposal). PS my edit on 28th should have referred to Template:Infobox aircraft type/doc. DexDor (talk) 07:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Intended user

I'm seeing "Foo Air Force (intended)" added to the "primary user" field more frequently now, but sometimes there's not enough space for the whole entry on one line. So, what about adding an "Intended user" field tothe infobox? This can be used for aircraft designs that were not built/never flew, but still had intended customers. - BilCat (talk) 07:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Introduced/Introduction

Do we really need to use 2 different words for this? I'd rather see us just use "Introduction" for past or future. We can change the output of "Introduced to read "Introduction", and grandfather it out over several month, perhaps having a bot change the remaining uses on the article after a few months. - BilCat (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from LikeLakers2, 14 November 2011

On line one, please replace: <pre><nowiki> <noinclude>{{pp-semi-template}}</noinclude> </nowiki></pre> with: <pre><nowiki> <noinclude>{{pp-template}}</noinclude> </nowiki></pre> so that it will match the actual protection level. Thanks. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 15:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed that {{pp-semi-template}} redirects to {{pp-template}}. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 15:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Designer only single person

What happened with the consensus to include groups and organisations - either as a new entry or under 'Designer' - as per the talk-page Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (aircraft) ? BP OMowe (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the very late reply. "design group" is what you're thinking of, and we also have "builder" for factories not related to the design group, such as with Soviet aircraft. - BilCat (talk) 06:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

ENGVAR issue

When talking about military programmes, the preferred British English spelling is "programme". Can I suggest the template be modified to allow both spellings ("program" and "programme") in both the parameter name and the text as it is rendered in the page. See this recent edit for an example of me undoing someone else's attempt to fix this for a British developed aircraft. Astronaut (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I dont think it is a major problem in the infobox most English readers can understand either spelling and if we add alternate fields somebody is sure to display both, simpler just to leave it alone. MilborneOne (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Primary users, primary user

The word "primary" is ambiguous. "Primary users" can mean "main users" or "earliest users". Besides, the earliest users may no longer be the main ones. Let's do something about it. 85.193.214.150 (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

For active aircraft the primary user is normally done by how many an operator has when it is taken out or near the end of service then the main user (by importance or size) is listed (can depend on page consensus, we dont seem to have had a problem with it so far. MilborneOne (talk) 08:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Then "primary" should be immediately renamed to replaced by "main" unless logic is not important in Wikipedia. 85.193.214.150 (talk) 06:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I (and I suspect most other English-speakers) would interpret "primary user" as "main user" (like "primary reason") rather than "first user" (like "primary school"). However, "main" might be slightly clearer and less pretentious. Is there any good reason why it shouldn't be changed from "primary" to "main"? DexDor ^(talk) 20:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

In this context "primary" is a bit ambiguous while "main" is not. And that, I think, should be sufficient to make a change. Thank you for your support :-) 85.193.214.150 (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

It's supposed to be ambiguous - sometimes the earliest user is listed first, sometimes it's the largest user - it depends on the individual aircraft type being discussed. "Primary" works well in both cases, while main does not. - BilCat (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

BilCat wrote:
>"sometimes the earliest user is listed first, sometimes it's the largest user"
Good catch! You've just indicated, that a single word may be not enough. So why not to use both: "earliest" or "largest" respectively?
>"Primary" works well in both cases
Yes, it does... for the editor, but not for the reader. Can you tell the difference? ;-)
But seriously, must we really destroy original information, which is precise and useful? 85.193.214.150 (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen any evidence that the readers in general have an issue with it, and that comes from years of watching users edit the infobox. You're the only one I know of who has raised the issue in 10 years, and even you seem to understand what it means. The point of the infobox is to provide a brief overview, and it does that quite well. Changing the way it's been presented to this point would be a lot of work for no real gain, and the "editors" would be the ones doing all that, not some drive-by reader. - BilCat (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Designer(s)

What do people think of the idea of changing the label "Designer" to "Designer(s)", to cater for situations like Jonker JS-1 Revelation, where the aircraft was designed by multiple individuals? DH85868993 (talk) 10:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

That's not what the field is intended for. Per the notes on the documentation page, "designer: The person who designed the aircraft. Only appropriate for one-person designers, not project leaders or chief designers." - BilCat (talk)

Thanks for the clarification. (You are quite correct, I should have read the template documentation). DH85868993 (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Other users

Separating list items with <br /> is an accessibility error. Templates such as {{plainlist}} and {{unbulleted list}} should be used instead. See MOS:UBLIST and MOS:VLIST for the guidelines. I've boldly changed the advice in the template documentation to reflect this. Hairy Dude (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Parallel development

There should be a section for parallel development. - ZLEA ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 06:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Not really needed. Any parallel projects can be listed in the "See also" section near the bottom of the article, under "Related development". - BilCat (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Successor/succeeded by?

For example, the Tupolev Tu-16 was succeeded by the Tupolev Tu-22, but currently the only way to indicate this is inline in the text. Would such information not be useful in this infobox?

Not really some aircraft have been succeeded by multiple types by multiple users so not particularly useful in the infobox. If it is noteworthy for one particularly user then it can be mentioned in the text. Most of the Tu-16 operators did not replace it with the Tu-22. MilborneOne (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. This is far too subjective a parameter for the infobox, and would be subject to endless discussions on what type(s) should or shouldn't be listed, and probably to edit wars also. - BilCat (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 March 2019

Please remove the line <noinclude>{{pp-template}}</noinclude> - protection templates are automatically handled by the documentation page. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Why are chief engineers/designers excluded from the designer parameter?

What was the reason for the designer parameter field not including chief engineers/designers? I started adding a few of them to the relevant articles before I ended up looking at this template and seeing the usage notes.

I looked back through the naming conventions talk page mentioned in a previous section, but I don't see any explanation of why that decision was made. It seems like it was made with Soviet aircraft design bureaus in mind and not other western cases such as the DC-3, B-24, and B-26. This question was even raised at the end of the section, and the suggestion was to use the "design group". However, it doesn't quite seem like it would fit in this scenario to have the infobox read "Design group Arthur Emmons Raymond" and "Design group Raymond's design-group" seems both awkward and redundant.

I can understand why we don't want to include multiple people that designed a single aircraft – I am not referring to that. However, it seems entirely reasonable to include chief engineers/designers. Many of them already have their own articles (e.g. Arthur Emmons Raymond, Isaac M. Laddon, Peyton M. Magruder) which indicates they are notable enough. (At the same time, these articles are also orphans, so adding a link to them in the infobox would help solve this.) –Noha307 (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

One other quick note, at the moment, the A-20 and P-47 articles also both list designers in the infobox, which would seem to also violate the existing consensus. I think this demonstrates that the current situation is at least somewhat confusing. –Noha307 (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Noha307: Did you ever get an answer to this question somewhere else? I must have missed it back when you asked it. Sorry! I have an answer, but it might get long, so I wait for a response first. Thanks.

Replicas with their own articles

I think this infobox should include a field for notable replicas, which are not technically variants or developments, but obviously inspired by the aircraft. What does everyone else think? - ZLEA _T\^C 22:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding ICAO designator?

IMO, adding an ICAO designator to the infobox would be valuable; in particular, there are cases (such as Beechcraft 400/400A/Hawker 400XP) when it is this designator which illustrates that the aircraft type is substantially the same despite being marketed under different commercial names. Ipsign (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Adding engines, range and operating height

Would it not be interesting to add these rather crucial features to an aircraft in the infobox?--Eivindgh (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

By consensus, all specs are covered in a separate template or table in the Specifications section. I don't see this changing any time soon. BilCat (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on removing cost from display/content

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Removing_cost_parameters GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

"Unit Cost" not showing up

I'm not sure if this is how to use a talk page, but I can't see "unit cost" in infoboxes, despite it clearly being in the source. StSeanSpicer (talk) 05:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry you've had difficulties with this, but both the program and unit cost parameters have recently been disabled in this infobox. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Cost in infoboxes for the quite-lengthy discussion which resulted in the costs being removed from the infobox. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Damaged articles due to breaking changes

This template underwent some breaking changes in January. Was the work ever completed? Lots of articles were affected, and I don't think any work was done to comprehensively find and fix articles that were affected. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I haven't run across any broken references since the first few days after the change. I don't know of any suggestions that were made of how to comprehensively find and fix the issues either, and I wouldn't know how to do it if I wanted to. Do you? However, in my experience, broken references are a common enough occurrence on Wikipedia, and are usually dealt with as they are found. I'm confident in that approach, as there is no deadline. BilCat (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I have found and fixed several so far. Broken references are common, but they're not desirable and there's no excuse for knowingly causing more. There might be no deadline, but making a cosmetic change that causes referencing problems which are hard to detect seems like it definitionally does more harm than good. Hiding behind "I don't know how to check my work" identifies the change as an act of willful negligence.

There are query tools which can find text throughout the corpus. It's also possible to change the template to add the including article to a specific maintenance category if an undesired parameter is present. This can be done before the removal so that the articles can be identified and fixed before the breaking change is actually implemented. That no alternatives were considered after objections were raised is apathetic and lazy. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Have you some examples of "broken" pages we can look at, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, Mikeblas, you've been less than civil throughout this whole issue, and I've about had enough of the snide remarks and put-downs. We didn't listen to your awesome wisdom, but in the end the sky didn't fall. Get over it and move on. BilCat (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

In "Category:Pages with broken reference names" I spotted three aircraft articles (out of 3000+ total): Irkut MC-21 and Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 have broken ref errors but not related to infobox change, Royal Aircraft Factory R.E.8 was affected by the infobox change but I just fixed it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Kills parameter?

Should there be a parameter for air-to-air kills? ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 18:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Plutonical Probably not in this infobox. Personally, I think this opens yet another door to edit wars between editors belonging to opposing sides of conflicts, which is the last thing we need right now. There is also the fact that kills are often disputed, and many kill claims go unconfirmed, making an accurate figure all but impossible to acquire. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

No, that's not something that should be in the infobox or the specs section. either. The number of kills is almost always controversial, and would be highly contentious, especially on aircraft used by long-term rivals such as India-Pakistan, Greece-Turkey, Israel-Arab nations, Ukraine-Russia, etc. BilCat (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Designer field

There are a huge number of abuses of this field out there, listing more than one designer or the evident head of a large team. There are (apparently) special cases such as the Supermarine Spitfire. I very quickly found the Heinkel He 111, HAL HF-24 Marut, Lockheed YF-12, Hawker Hurricane and Hawker Hart, which vary from abuse to possible special case (how would one know?) to dubious edge case. I respectfully suggest that this field is not doing what it should.

We could ignore the mess, drop the parameter altogether, or agree to re-purpose it closer to the way its is actually being used. My preference would be for the last of these.

In particular, I would suggest that the chief designer of a team should be acceptable. Also, a short list where the designers were equal partners and cutting someone out would be untenable. No project managers, Company Chief Designers, etc. unless they personally headed the actual team.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps a separate parameter should be created for chief designers. Some aircraft, such as the Pitts Special, were designed by a single person, while others had a chief designer leading the design team. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

While I wasn't present for the initial discuss when this was first decided, I think part of the reason chief designers, project leaders, etc. were excluded is because the difference in roles is not always cut and dried. I've seen enough edit warring occur on this before to know that opening this up will bring a lot of arguments about who should or should not be listed. But, as always, I'll abide be the final consensus. I've been here a long time, and a lot of newer users may feel differently. There are several current restrictions on the infobox I don't agree with, but I still uphold them. If this one does change, I may bring some of them up to see if consensus on those can be changed too. BilCat (talk) 06:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The goal of an infobox is to provide an at-a-glance fast, simple info. First flight, production run, current usage... are useful in this respect. I'm not sure if one designer would be appropriate if there is nuance to be added to their contribution. I regret the costs parameters though!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

That's a good reminder of what the infobox is for. On the removal of the "cost parameter", that was precipitated by one highly aggressive user who apparently is no longer active. I wouldn't oppose a discussion on restoring it, though I still think it's probably better in the text, as the nuances can be complicated, especially for military aircraft. BilCat (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Yup, I don't think it would be useful to stir this pot again.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Totally agree, the cost monster should stay buried. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

In reply to ZLEA, I am against adding an extra parameter, it just increases the opportunities for muddle and abuse. Conventionally one just talks of the designer, and only makes it clear as and when necessary if this is a lone wolf or a team leader or whoever. For example we say that the de Havilland DH.88 Comet racer was designed by A. E. Hagg. He was head of the company's design team at the time but we don't go on about his official role or company status. Similarly with Mitchell and the Spitfire. This last example is already acknowledged as a special case, but I think it better to acknowledge such cases as not actually so special. The infobox is just not the place for such hair-splitting. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposal

Nobody seems set against the principle of expanding the scope of the Designer parameter. I therefore propose amending the template guideline to read:

"designer

"The person who designed the aircraft or led the design. Not appropriate for company chief designers, project leaders, teams, etc. unless they led the actual engineering design."

Any objections? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Support - I see no problem with this proposal. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

• Mild oppose - Per my comments above. However, if I'm the only "Oppose", go ahead and implement it. This seems to be a yawner where no one else really cares, so I'm not going to be a party pooper! BilCat (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  Actually, I made the change a couple of days ago. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)