Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 5

message: The info box is a superior visual way of presenting information. I have generated a parameterised version for the military jets based upon the old one - at template:aircraft-jet-mil which I have used for the Hawker P.1127, and for the poor old BAC TSR-2. 
Now infoboxes are good visually but hard on the eyes when editing, parameters make editing easy, and expansion easier still.
For other examples look to template:tank usable for most military vehicles, Template:Doctorwhobox, template:weapon-firearm. GraemeLeggett 28 June 2005 15:52 (UTC)
:Just an initial observation that "visually superior" is very much an opinion; the whole push away from an infobox to text-based specifications was initially driven by people arguing exactly the opposite. --Rlandmann 28 June 2005 16:00 (UTC)
:: I thought it a commonly-held belief that a tabular format was superior to a list of text, but I will see if my argument can be supported. To my mind though, the first, and a major ,effect of the infobox is that it restricts the width of the text of the article, which reduces the work the reader's eyes have to do to - a common problem with the landscape format of the computer monitor. Secondly, and less importantly it can be used to add colour to the page. GraemeLeggett 28 June 2005 16:28 (UTC)
:::When we switched from the old table format, the consensus in favour of the new format was quite strong.  I strongly agree with Rlandmann on the topic of 'visual superiority'.  I also find that the current format is far nicer than the old table format; note, however, that I would not object to readopting the table format if someone came along with a redesigned table that looked better than the old one.  For now, let's stay away from the table until some consensus is reached in favour of returning to it.  I believe that current WikiProject Aircraft policy is to update any articles in the old format on site.
:::Regarding the use of parametrised templates: they are simply too inflexible to use effectively, necessitating multiple templates with only subtle differences.  I also disagree that they would necessarily be easier to use, given the huge number of parametres involved.  Because the parametres appear in a horizontal list, they lack the organisation afforded by directly editing a table; instead, they are just a line of names, numbers and = signs.  Furthermore, to properly use a such a template, one must:
:::#Know which template has all the proper parametres
:::#Know the names of all the parametres
:::#Fill out the value of every parametre exactly as it occurs (if you type <|Span=146 ft|>, the template won't register it, because the parametre's name is .
:::By the way, if you want tables that are easier to edit, you might be interested in Wikipedia:Proposal for Table: namespace and intuitive table editor.  Ingoolemo talk 2005 June 29 00:33 (UTC)
Tables are a standards nightmare, as well as destroying any sense of page flow on a mobile device. They make inline images within any article difficult to line up or even use - often shoving them to the bottom of the page. Attempts at using inline tables, like the orders for Airbus A380 and Boeing 787, are ruined as well, as they too are shoved to the bottom. Finally, contrary to your opinion I think they look like absolute crap from a web/print designer's perspective. Adding color to the page is something that doesn't work across all wikipedia skins - which exist, fyi, and which aren't identically colored - and is generally unattractive (puke green! hot turquoise!). In conclusion, we should avoid reverting to tables because they suck. -eric ✈ 29 June 2005 02:03 (UTC)
:Wow! just in case anyone didn't know how Eric feels about tables :).  But I'd forgotten about the image problem.  Basically, if you try to insert an image aligned on the same side as a table, the table will force the image to the end of the table, usually causing a large and unsightly gap in the text.  If you try to insert it on the opposite side, the text will be so squeezed it looks hideous.  So, yet another reason table's are bad.
:By the way, Graeme, if no one else objects in the next few weeks, I'm going to update your articles to the new standard.  I would like to request that you create no further templates until some significant support for the concept is demonstrated.  Thanks and Cheers, Ingoolemo talk 2005-06-29 02:15:29 (UTC)
::Excuse me: I saw the way the template worked in the Hawker P.1227, and now recognise that a vertical list of parametres is possible with a parametrised template.  Sorry for my confusion.  Ingoolemo talk 2005-06-29 02:48:57 (UTC)
:::Hi. Though I contribute to en.wp little, let me make some comments: I don't have any strong opinion to use or not, but using parameters have an advangate, as you may know. You can change the format of the data "on all the pages at once" by just editing the corresponding template. Say, from table to list or plain text style, vice versa, etc... In this method, when changing the data format is needed, you don't have to edit all the pages as present (no need for bots, neither).
:::Again, I'm not saying we should use the method, instead, my intention is just giving info. Perhaps you are well familiar with these benefits. In that case, sorry to bother you.
:::By the way, about Ingoolemo's three points, I guess just 1 can be the problem. 2 and 3 don't seem to be serious when you use "copy-and-paste", instead of typing. (I'm afraid I might miss the point...) - Marsian // talk June 29, 2005 13:09 (UTC) -- fixed Marsian // talk June 29, 2005 13:10 (UTC)
::::Marsian raises an important point - Graeme is actually proposing two quite separate things here: reverting to using an infobox as a standard, and adopting a parametrised template for presenting specifications. While I am very much against the first of these ideas, I wouldn't mind revisiting the second. 
::::My opposition to the infobox is purely a pragmatic one. Unlike others here, I don't have a strong preference for or against table vs text; I'm happy to go with community consensus. On the other hand, most of our aircraft articles now have the text-specifications, and converting them would be a very major undertaking. Additionally, changing the standard last time was difficult and, at times, acrimonious. I feel a strong disinclination to go back and start undoing changes to pages that have been updated over the past year, to start the wholesale conversion of hundreds of articles that have been created with the new format in place, or to explain to other editors why the article they created with an infobox which was subsequently updated ("But I spent ages getting that table right!") has now been changed back to an infobox. 
::::On the other hand, most people here will know that standardising the way that we present content is a priority for me, and therefore I find a parametrised template very appealing! Last time we discussed this, the perceived problems included:
::::*ease of editing: a plain text specifications section is easy for new editors to use, rather than being hit with a face full of code when they hit the edit button. This problem was exacerbated by the sheer size of our infobox, meaning that a lot of scrolling was needed before reaching any real content.
::::*questions about the stability of the software: were parametrised templates here to stay? (WikiProject Aircraft had been recently badly affected by a previous system-wide change when the new [still current] skin was adopted for the 'pedia).
::::The second of these objections is easily dismissed now - parametrised templates don't seem to be going anywhere - we may as well agonise over whether  will always bold text. As to the first: if were were to parametrise the current text section, it would still be a fair way down the article - the edit button will still bring up intelligible text first. Furthermore, speaking pragmatically again, relatively few articles on aircraft are contributed with the project's standard specifications. To me, it seems that adapting or replacing the data that's contributed to make it match a new parametrised template is no more work for the project than adapting or replacing the data to make it match the convention that we have now. Finally, believe that the change to using a parametrised template to express our current text-specifications wouldn't lead to many ruffled feathers - if someone were to contribute a plain text section that then got parametrised by a project member, since the result looks the same, I doubt there would be too many complaints. --Rlandmann 2 July 2005 03:40 (UTC)
: Well, I don't think colors should be used on any tables.  While we can't remove the page flow issues, I think plain tables (no borders, no color fills, only bold text for headings) integrate nicely with any page's visual design.   Something like this, though with row rather than column headings, nicer spacing and no wikilinks. ✈ James C. July 2, 2005 17:00 (UTC)
:::::I have to agree with those arguing against reintroduction of infoboxes. Without a doubt parameterised templates would make the whole process easier and more accessible to new users but the downsides are already well documented (though me pet hate was the wide variation in infobox styles). Parameterised plain text specs. would be very easy to edit but then generating them within an article as plain text is not complicated. However the arguments here make me believe the best option is a parmaterised, plain text specification. Mark 17:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parameterised templates 

message: Please comment on this proposed survey. Are there any other questions that need asking? Are there any other options that need to be provided for? --Rlandmann 6 July 2005 12:23 (UTC)
:My commments are there. Great idea. -Lommer | talk 7 July 2005 02:05 (UTC)
OK - polls open in 20 minutes. --Rlandmann 09:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh man, I hope its not too late. I just thought of something we should throw in - When is the earliest date at which we should revisit the consensus achieved by this survey. (with options of bi-weekly, monthly, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, >2 years, never). By setting up something like that we can more authoritatively stick to a standard, though we can still evolve (i.e. if the template system gets improved). Can we throw this in now? -Lommer | talk 00:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed the extra question, if only to comply with Wikipedia:Survey guidelines (see #6). In any case, after the survey is complete we will still have to reach consensus on a revised standard to actually adopt; we could try and reach consensus on a "sunset clause" at that time. BTW - I strongly agree that such an agreement would be a Good Thing. Rlandmann 01:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Ok. -Lommer | talk 01:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Gene - you've voted against using a template because you say it didn't work as Graeme said it would. But the template works exactly as he said it would, for each of the five possibilities you asked about; you can see the sample output here. 
You go on to say that you also have a problem with "infexibility in choosing an appropriate prefix". What does this mean? --Rlandmann 03:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to note that while Gene seems to have a very vocal disagreement with a number of things, they'd be better placed outside of the survey itself on a talk page where they can be discussed. As the statements are not necessarily fact, they could alter survey results artificially. -eric ✈ 04:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone's comments could alter survey results, and Gene is as entitled to his as anyone else is to theirs. "Brief" comments were permitted, and I don't think any of his are overly long. --Rlandmann 04:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Template didn't work?

message: (moved from survey development page by Rlandmann 02:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mach maximum speed