Template talk:Aircontent
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
==Related content==
{{aircontent
<!-- designs which were developed into or from this aircraft: -->
|related=
<!-- aircraft similar in appearance or function to this design: -->
|similar aircraft=
<!-- the manufacturer or operator (military etc) sequence this aircraft belongs in: -->
|sequence=
<!-- any lists that are appropriate: -->
|lists=
<!-- other articles that could be useful to connect with: -->
|see also=
}}
make sure to include ==Related content==, as this allows editors to directly edit the parameters. also, feel free to remove the <!-- --> sections when you're done editing. -eric ✈ 00:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Sample use:
[edit] Related content
Related development
- Mk. 4
Comparable aircraft
- A Similar Design
- Yet Another
- [add one!]
Designation sequence
Mk. 1 - Mk. 2 - Mk. 3 - Mk. 4
Related lists
- item one
- item two
See also
- this one
- or this
[edit] bulleted lists
I think that the bulleted lists are less clean (in most cases) than the linear ones utilised in the black box. (See Convair B-36#Related content) for an example. Ingoolemo talk 05:20, 2005 August 2 (UTC)
- That's not set in the template, it's up to the editor. To be honest, I think that while they might look cleaner in a linear design, it's more difficult to read. It's easier to read a linear sequence, but when there's other information there - like manufacturers or model nicknames - it gets difficult. That's why I personally prefer the lists. Either way, that's not something we can run with the template. -eric ✈ 05:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] List and see also fields
I have added list and see also fields to the template. I will fix the problems these new fields have created. Kudos to Eric or whoever thought up the scheme to toggle the fields on and off.
The toggling is causing some problems with the display, by inserting extra linebreaks when a field is switched off; I will try to fix them, but may not succeed. Ingoolemo talk 17:53, 2005 August 2 (UTC)
- If you fix the existing articles (I'll do this too) then I can fix the line breaks. Since we're revising, I'm going to add "has related development" as well. :) -eric ✈ 17:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Reservations
I have reservations about this template.
It interests me because I also would like variant record structure for a template or two; the most straightforward way of building a template fails, since unsupplied parameters display as the parameter placeholder. But the approach taken here seems intolerably clunky. The effect is to restrict use to a small group who thoroughly understand how the template works.
I'm not sure I see the value of the template, since all the substantial information is supplied when it is used. That is, it does not supply content; and the form it supplies is so very straightforward. Why cannot the content just be entered inline? If some sort of subsection framework is desired, would not a solution similar to {{doctl}} (see talk) be sufficient?
I'd like to discuss these issues with those editors involved. Thank You! — Xiong熊talk* 15:55, 2005 August 17 (UTC)
[edit] Latest?
Hi all. I received a message from eric, who suggested that I reformat my Hawker Tornado article to use this template. However there seems to be some doubt as to whether everyone is going firm on this set-up, so should I go ahead and make changes or wait and see what else comes along? Thanks guys!--Xiphon 18:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Problems with this template
This template has a number of problems that I'm not convinced can be solved easily.
- The main problem is that it uses a "template within a template" scheme which is harmful on the servers.
- It places content which should be in the article itself, into a template which is hard for new editors to understand, and probably very easy to foul up.
- The headings, particularly the standard "See also" and "External links" ones, do not show up in the table of contents. See Lockheed SR-71 for example.
All in all, I don't consider this a very appropriate use for a template. This text should be part of the main article body. Are there any compelling reasons for using this that I'm not aware of? -- Netoholic @ 08:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- While I agree that this template is better substed in the first place (which would solve the first two problems), I think most of your other concerns can be adressed by simply renaming "related content" to "see also", reordering the sections so that the former "see also" links comes before the fake sections and making "external links" a true header. Circeus 19:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- oppose. The original WP:Air related content was (and in many cases is) in a table, with no standardized headings at all. I've made See also and External links into H2s, as requested, but the 'template within a template' is using QIF - the entire purpose of that template. This makes conversion of hundreds of articles at once to a new standard (for instance, the change from bold to header text I just made) much more practical, something which I feel justifies slightly higher server strain. ericg ✈ 20:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Qif is being deprecated, per WP:AUM which is how I found this template. Also, templates are not supposed to "masquerade" as article content, because that confuses new editors. Templates are fine to use to provide a "skeleton" for an article, for use with subst:, but should not be used to hold the entirety of the articles formatting. I don't want to force the issue, but we must remove the Qif template, per policy and the developers' request to do, and we need to also follow the guideline that templates aren't use to only format large sections of article text. I'm confident that if I were to take this to WP:TFD, that the result (which I've seen before) will be either to delete or keep, but only use with subst. -- Netoholic @ 20:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- oppose. The original WP:Air related content was (and in many cases is) in a table, with no standardized headings at all. I've made See also and External links into H2s, as requested, but the 'template within a template' is using QIF - the entire purpose of that template. This makes conversion of hundreds of articles at once to a new standard (for instance, the change from bold to header text I just made) much more practical, something which I feel justifies slightly higher server strain. ericg ✈ 20:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
-
This is the point I made on the WP:Air talk page. Since the only requirement for editing Wikipedia is an internet connection, maintaining high quality and consistent style is dependent on a dedicated group of editors. I leave references to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content whenever I reformat a page in the hopes of educating the author. The major convenience of templates is the ability to change formatting on all pages using it without having to manually edit 2,000+ entries. I wish there was a PHP-like way to generate layout around contents on Wikipedia. - Emt147 Burninate! 02:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I have reinstated {{qif}}, because it is very useful for this particular template. If the issue is that this particular template is masquerading as content, then {{aircontent}} should be deprecated, not {{qif}}. Also, qif is not being completely deprecated; see Template talk:Qif and [1]. Ingoolemo talk 06:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Do not use this template!
The layout provided by this template is wrong. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content External Links are a separate section preceding Related content. Because Related content is hard-written into each page, there is no way to make this template generate the correct output. - Emt147 Burninate! 05:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
