Template talk:Infobox aircraft occurrence/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Borders

The border are a bit too much????nishantjr (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Callsign

Any chance of including this in the template? Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Accident or Incident

If you check Aviation accidents and incidents there are somewhat precise definitions of what is an accident and what is an incident. Everytime that somebody is killed or the aircraft is damaged (or disappears completely) it's an accident. So I guess most incidents that aren't classified as accidents aren't notable. I think the template should say "Accident summary" on the top by default. Perhaps we could add a switch "accident_or_incident=" for those incidents that do have their own articles. --ospalh (talk) 11:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess I have to amend that a bit. Hijackings are aviation incidents and notable. So we probably shouldn't just change the text from incident to accident.--ospalh (talk) 11:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Calling all occurrences 'incidents' is wrong, as would be calling them all 'accidents'. As you say above, there are precise legal definitions for both accident and incident, and 'occurrence' covers both of them. The current version is wrong, because it implies there were no fatalities, for example, whereas most notable occurrences are fatal. I am planning to change the title to 'occurrence', which is the generic term used by government agencies, pending a better term. Crum375 (talk) 03:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I ended up adding an optional parameter 'occurrence_type', which allows the editor to specify 'Accident' or 'Incident', and will default to plain 'Occurrence' if unspecified. This can be improved by forcing enumerated types, possibly using a different parameter name/style, and documentation. Also, given that most notable occurrences are Accidents, it may make sense to default to 'Accident'. Crum375 (talk) 03:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Great work! Thanks. I'm all for changing the default to Accident.

The main alternative to Accident will be, AFAIS, Hijacking and not Incident. I maintain that what's classified as just an Incident is not notable most of the time. The Gimli Glider you added as an 'Incident' is classified an accident by aviation-safety.net. (Search Gimli in the list. The 'cat' 'A2' (last column) means 'accident, plane could be repaired'.) I think that's right: the plane was seriously damaged and a few passengers got hurt during evacuation. An example for just an incident is this ATSB final report. In short: some kind of fuel loss, one engine shut down, landed ASAP, nothing else happend. Other typical incidents are, AFAIK, planes on the runway without authorisation. Doesn't seem notable to me.

What I wonder is; are there enough hijackings using this template to justify not changing the default from Occurance to Accidnt. I think not, but I'm not sure. And it's surely a matter of opinion.--ospalh (talk) 07:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at some of the pages that use this template. There were more hijackings, and other acts of terrorism (bombings) than I thought. I've now changed my mind. Looks like it'll be better not to change it from Occurrence to Accident.--ospalh (talk) 09:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll change the docs from "Accident or Incident" to "Accident or Hijacking, or leave blank" with a few more words in the parameters table. I'm unsure what the title should be for a bombing or shootdown. Of course "Occurence Summary" fits, but it sounds a bit generic. And "Act of Terrorism Summary" or "Criminal Act Summary" to me seem to be a bit long for the heading in an infobox. I'm not sure that using different occurrence_type for each of those is a good idea. Anybody got an idea?--ospalh (talk) 10:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Renaming

Given that the 'occurrence_type' parameter seems to be sticking, and that this infobox covers hijacking, suicide/homicide bombings, as well as plain non-accident incidents, and given that the default caption is 'occurrence', I think it's time to move the title to 'Infobox Aircraft occurrence'. Of course all previous names will be redirected, so there should be no breakage. Comments? Crum375 (talk) 03:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have performed the move. Crum375 (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Stopovers

Can the template be amended to support two more stopovers please? Mjroots (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Fix for blank image parameters

If some of the image parameters are supplied but left blank, instead of being ignored the template currently uses them as though blank.

For example, if image_size and alt are listed but blank, the code results in [[Image:example.jpg|px|alt=]] instead of [[Image:example.jpg|260px]]. This does not much matter for alt but for image_size it unexpectedly results in the image being rendered at full size. The {{Px}} template is intended to help in situations such as this, and it also allows editors flexibility on whether to include "px" after the number.

Also, if image is left blank but Crash image is specified instead, the template expects them to be usable interchangeably but in this case image will still be used, resulting in a blank file name.

Finally, the image_size parameter is also passed on directly to {{Infobox}} even though the Infobox template does not have a parameter of that name.

Therefore, I suggest deleting the following two lines:

 | image       = {{#if:{{{image|}}}{{{Crash image|}}}|[[Image:{{{image|{{{Crash image}}}}}}|{{{image_size|260}}}px|alt={{{alt|}}}]]}}
 |image_size   = {{#if:{{{image_size<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}{{{size|260}}}}}

and replacing them with the following one line:

 | image       = {{#if:{{{image|}}}{{{Crash image|}}}|[[Image:{{#if:{{{image|}}}|{{{image|}}}|{{{Crash image|}}}}}|{{px|{{{image_size|}}}|260px}}|{{#if:{{{alt|}}}|alt={{{alt|}}}}}]]

I've updated the /sandbox but not changed the template itself yet in case anyone has any comments.

— Richardguk (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: The template has not been moved, in accordance with the consensus here. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Template:Infobox Aircraft occurrence → Template:Infobox Aircraft incident — It is usual to refer to such events not as "occurrences", but as "incidents". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose — "Incident" in aviation refers to a very specific type of event, where there are implications to safety, possibly some minor injuries, but no fatalities. It is distinct from "Accident", where there is at least one fatality, or major damage and/or injuries. (See the U.S. NTSB's definitions here and the international ICAO's "Occurrence Classes" definition here.) There are also other types of events which are classified separately by ASN and Wikipedia, such as hijacking. The generic name for all these types of events can't be "accident" or "incident", because they are mutually exclusive, and don't include a suicide bombing, for example. "Occurrence" is used on WP to refer to all generic events, with an optional occurrence_type parameter to allow editors to specify a more specific type, such as "accident", "incident", or "homicide bombing", depending on the type of occurrence. Crum375 (talk) 10:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
• 'It looks like this template is intended to cover the entire spectrum of aviation mishaps, which includes the technical definitions of "accident", "incident", etc.. Because of the need to distinguish the colloquial from the technical meaning, we shouldn't use "incident". Therefore, oppose. TheFeds 22:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support. The current name is of no value if figuring out what this covers. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The template's name is supposed to remain as generic as possible, to cover all possible aircraft occurrences, but the occurrence_type parameter lets the editors decide the specific type of occurrence. Crum375 (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Generic yes. Meaningless no. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
      • The reliable sources (ICAO and U.S. NTSB) use "occurrence" as the generic name for an aircraft event. Do you have another suggestion? Crum375 (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
• Perhaps Template:Infobox Aircraft event would be acceptable? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Why would we want to overrule the two reliable sources we have for this, ICAO and NTSB, which use "occurrence"? Crum375 (talk) 12:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
    • For the reasons Vegaswikian and I gave above. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
      • But I don't see any explanation as to why the reliable sources are wrong. Crum375 (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
        • That would be because nobody is claiming that "the reliable sources are wrong". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
          • So if they are right, why not rely on them? Crum375 (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
            • Crum, just drop the issue for now. Consensus is not required to be unanimous, so it isn't worth going in circles over. - BilCat (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
            • Whether they are right or wrong is immaterial, since they do not address the issue of naming a Wikipedia template. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Template:Infobox Aircraft event is probably too vague to be useful, and even more meaningless than "occurence" can be without any context. - BilCat (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I also think "aircraft event" could refer to "happy" occasions, such as a "roll out" or inaugural flight of a new type, a record-breaking flight, or even a "Fly-in". This is why it's nice to have the reliable sources picking the word for us. Crum375 (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per Crum375. If reliable sources use "occurrence", then it is hardly "meaningless". - BilCat (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Crum375's comments. - The Bushranger (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

More info related to hijackings

I think it's a good idea to add some hijacking-specific items to the template to provide some information that's not normally applicable to other types of aviation occurrence. This includes:

• Number of hijackers. The infoboxes in some current hijacking articles include the hijackers in the passenger count, but others don't, and there seems to be little consistency. I think that a hijacker count is important enough to warrant its own line in the infobox.
• A separate injury, fatality, and survivor count for the hijacker(s). Again, some articles lump this in with the passenger count, which I find confusing.
• Number of hijackers captured, if any.
• Organization(s) to which the hijackers belong, if any can be identified.
• If the aircraft was diverted by the hijacker(s), I think the infobox should include the location(s) to which it was taken. Note that this is different than fields already included in the infobox- "Location" would be the place the hijacking occurred and "Destination" would be the flight's intended destination.
• A brief one-sentence description of the conclusion of the hijacking incident- e.g. "Hijacker arrested by police", "Airliner stormed by commandos, all hijackers killed, several hostages and one soldier injured".

Thoughts? Carguychris (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Took a stab at making the changes in the sandbox and test cases have been posted.Carguychris (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Maps

Would it be useful to be able to include a map showing the location of the accident/incident? What I have in mind is something similar to the various maps showing locations of towns and villages. Mjroots (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This template should really allow for a map to be added (like this for example). It should also allow for the time to be added (i.e. the time that the incident happend). ~Asarlaí 21:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Perpetrator field

Should this have a perpetrator field. It seems like that might be useful for articles like Iran Air Flight 655 and United Airlines Flight 175. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

No I dont think it is really needed in the infobox. MilborneOne (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Ironically, I feel that perpetrator is exactly the type of language that would be disputed in the cases we were discussing, such as the one over at USS Liberty, as the idea of writing nations as belligerents or fighting each other has been rejected since both governments weren't actively at war or fought against each other and have attributed it to mistaken identity. --Jethro B 19:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

We could use some other word instead of "perpetrator". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

We could also have a "perpetrator_header" parameter like the "combatants_header" on {{Infobox military conflict}}. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

We have Category:Airliner shootdown incidents, Category:Airliner bombings, and Category:Airliner accidents and incidents involving deliberate crashes‎, containing dozens of articles that use this template. Where the party responsible for the occurrence is know, it should be in the info box, with a reliable source ref if necessary. If the matter is controversial, wording can be worked out on the talk page of the article in question, or the line can be left out if consensus is lacking. But there are plenty of clear cut cases.--agr (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Cause

It should say what the cause was. The TWA Flight 800 crash was caused by a short circuit, which produced a spark that detonated air and paraffin mixture, causing the fuselage to fracture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.209.248 (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

In the TWA Flight 800 it says the accident type was an "In-flight Explosion". Further detail is in the article and not really needed in the infobox. MilborneOne (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Tail number

Is it time to change the colloquial Tail Number from the infobox and change it to the more normal Registration, the term links to Aircraft registration already. MilborneOne (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

No comments after two-weeks I will make the change soon. MilborneOne (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Registration seems better to me — particularly as for many (or most) nationalities, aircraft registration does not involve numbers at all.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, "tail number" is used to refer to even no-number-at-all registrations, at least on this side of the pond. Not sure globally of course! But "Registration" is probably the best, neutral expression. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Split type= to scenario= and cause= ?

The so named "accident type" parameter attempts to answer simultaneously two different questions:

• Which was a scenario of the event destroyed an aircraft and made some fatalities inevitable?
• What factors caused such scenario to be realized?

Such choices for type= as “Mid-air collision”, “Controlled flight into terrain” and “Structural failure” are scenarios, but each of these may have various causes. On the other hand, “Pilot error”, “Metal fatigue” and “Improper maintenance” are possible causes, but not scenarios.

Comprehensive descriptions of incident scenario and cause should be like that: | scenario= Mid-air collision | cause= ATC error | scenario= Explosive decompression | cause= Metal fatigue

Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. I've always found "accident type" to be confused/confusing. 82.1.57.194 (talk) 11:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

---

So, where is a discussion, where is the progress? Demolished the house to be built, protected the infobox and went to sleep? We are brass hats, we can build nothing, we just revert and protect… how is it familiar to me ☹ Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively - why not put more into the parameter. Write "collision due to fog", "crash due to engine loss". Now, that some instances might be hard to summarise in a few words but that would be a problem whether one line or two are used. Expanding what is put into the parameter needs only consensus and a rewriting of the template instructions and no editing of the template code. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

An obvious shortcoming of this proposal is worse machine-readability, which decreases possibilities of:

• automatic categorization,
• metadata processing, and
• centralized changes to an appearance of the same value used in hundreds of instances.

In view of Wikidata starting up, namely improving a machine-readability should become the infobox way. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• At first, I'd've agreed with GraemeL, except that the more articles I browsed, the more the confusion between type and cause and/or the omission of one or the other in the descriptions persuaded me that a little more structure was needed – i.e. separate type and cause parameters (and perhaps selection from a limited choice of types). Incnis M has now indicated how this might be built on to produce more integrated, consistent data for (future) reference uses. CsDix (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• ...I've now moved the "IP version" (from 2011) into this template's sandbox and, on first sight, it seems a promising way to proceed. Would anyone object if I made an edit request to reinstate it – or something close to it – in order to see how it might handle a range of articles? It seems to be transparent as regards parameters (i.e. doesn't look as if it would "break" the current system), but I'd check this was so before making such a request. CsDix (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 April 2013

Request to rename 'Type' to 'Summary' (deprecate 'type' param but leave it in for backward compatibility).

See discussion here. The most important points are: it is not our place to label or somehow classify aircraft occurrences; and that 'type' currently lacks a simple taxonomy, leading to arguments of that sort. It should also be made clear in the doc that the summary ought to be factual; a very brief recount of events. It should not be an attempt to somehow apportion blame and it shouldn't delve into whatever factors led to the occurrence, i.e. phrasing like 'pilot error' that is largely uninformative should be avoided. This is ok: 'Aircraft impacted mountain side'; this is not ok: 'Aircraft impacted mountain side after improper control inputs'; this is not ok either: 'CFIT'.

Lfdder (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Really need more input from users rather than a discussion on one article, I have invited other users to comment here at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The requested change seems like a positive suggestion to me. - Ahunt (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Weak Support - I haven't looked super closely at this question, but glancing over it the proposal makes sense. I've looked at a few of the pages that use this template, and it seems to me that "Summary" is simply a better word to use. NickCT (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

No opposition to this request, so  Done. Perhaps someone could update the documentation? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Although late to the party, I support this proposal because the "Type" field is not always supported by RS making its inclusion problematic in terms of OR. "Summary" is a much better choice as a field. I also support the RFC rationale presented by Lfdder. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 June 2013

Replace lines 14–17

| label2      = Date
| data2       = {{{Date|{{{date|}}} }}}
| label3      = Summary
| data3       = {{{summary|{{{Type|{{{type|}}}}}}}}}

with

| data2       = {{{summary|{{{Type|{{{type|}}}}}}}}}
| label3      = Date
| data3       = {{{Date|{{{date|}}} }}}

so as to avoid repetition ("Occurrence summary :: summary"). Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence/sandbox 2 to see difference. Lfdder (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose – While I can see the purpose of your proposed edit, I don't think we should move the summary to the top of the infobox. It almost looks like a headline for a news article; I see no reason to emphasize the summary of the accident. I'd prefer having the summary the way it currently is, i.e. below the date. HeyMid (contribs) 21:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
• Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request 07/2013: Incident ID

Please add an optional field for incident IDs, so that the corresponding reports can be looked up accordingly, e.g. DCA13MA120 for the Asiana 214 flight [1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parallelized (talk • contribs) 20:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure it is needed if an investigation report is released it will be referenced or used as an external link so the organisations number has no value, I also suspect it only applies to the United States. MilborneOne (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. — Lfdder (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 July 2013

Rm odd styling from caption padding-top:1.0em;

Lfdder (talk) 12:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Add IATA/ICAO airport codes

The origin/stopover/destination locations seem bare without the IATA/ICAO airport codes. Shouldn't we have parameters for these, which, if present, would append "(XXX/YYYY)" to the location? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The locations are linked so the codes can be found in the related article, they are not really relevant to the accident or the general reader. MilborneOne (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Adding Aviation Safety Network as a parameter?

Can we add a parameter to the infobox to allow the linking of this site? This site has the information for all aviation accidents, incidents, and hijackings as well as providing maps (which wikipedia isn't directly allowed to use but can do so via a third party). The links are quite simple, allow a parameter such as |ASN = 20140308-0 which would appear as a link at the bottom of the infobox, preferable called ASN. This site is trustworthy (even has its own article) and used in over 6,800 articles on wikipedia..Its quite a useful link to have on the pages of every aviation crash related articles--Stemoc (talk) 10:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Dont agree as ASN is not the only site with this sort of information and we should not promote it in the infobox, in the actual article we already have a template for use Template:ASN accident (note also Template:ASN which is used for airport accident info). MilborneOne (talk) 10:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Definitely not the only site, but the most reliable, and using it as a template already means that it should somehow be incorporated into the infobox...its like an ID number for airplane disasters just like we have id numbers for players in certain sports etc..and since its a database, it probably has more information than wikipedia and probably more detailed.... wouldn't it be a good idea to give readers options? since its a database, its updated regularly, can't say the same for related pages on wikipedia..--Stemoc (talk) 10:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Still dont agree it is on the border of not being a reliable source so using the Template:ASN accident in the article is OK but not in the infobox. To gain balance then it could then be claimed we link to all the other accident websites which is clearly not needed. MilborneOne (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Missing parameter?

From my post over at Talk:Tenerife_airport_disaster#parameter_in_infobox_not_used.3F: Currently in the infobox, there's a parameter: |plane2_remarks = The tour guide who did not reboard the plane is not counted as a survivor, nor as a passenger. - the infobox does not currently implement this parameter and thus this should be remedied. I am unsure when there was such a parameter (cursory checks of a few diffs didn't find it), and thus I ask whether this is abnormal. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure we need a free text field in the infobox and it seems a strange statement to make in an infobox, or indeed in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Please increase number of supported numbered stopovers from 4 to 6

Please add parameters stopover4 (labeled "5th stopover") and stopover 5 (labeled "6th stopover"), analogous to the existing ones, needed for reasonable numbering of all the stopovers in article Varig Flight 254 and maybe others. —WinTakeAll💬 05:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Done Please update the documentation and the examples. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 June 2014

The infobox doesn't display the image/caption of the second aircraft. See also this edit. When I use plane3_image and plane3_caption, both are displayed. Richard 08:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This needs to be fixed, but the above template is only used when there is code ready to apply; so I've disabled it for now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Two images?

If anyone knows how to get two images to display correctly (i.e. both same size and in correct place) please would they edit the 2014 Olsberg mid-air collision article to get them to do so. Thanks in advance. Mjroots (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

See previous heading. It's an error in the infobox that should be corrected. Since the template is protected, I can't do it myself. Richard 08:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Richardw:, what is the error. I can edit the template, but need to know what to do. Mjroots (talk) 08:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Probably somewhere in this edit, the template lost its ability to display the second image. It used to work fine. Richard 13:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Pinging @Technical 13: - can you fix this please? Mjroots (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• That's really odd. Should (and seems to) be working fine now. If the image doesn't display, try a null edit (click edit, scroll to edit box, click save). Thanks for bringing it up! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 18:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks guys! Richard 07:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Map support

I've hacked together support for maps in this template. Please see Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence/sandbox and Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence/testcases. Mackensen (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Missing people

As for example Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, I think it's useful to expand the infobox with missing people (besides of: Injuries (non-fatal), Fatalities and Survivors). Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I made a sandboxed version of the template with new "missing" parameters. See test cases. Ruslik_Zero 18:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Done APerson (talk!) 21:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Injuries vs survivors

What is the difference between injuries and survivors? I can't discern any difference in their descriptions. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

At the risk of stating the obvious: not every survivor is necessarily injured. The group with non-fatal injuries is a subset of the survivors. The number of people with non-fatal injuries is alway less than or equal to the number of survivors. Richard 08:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Analyzing my thought log to determine the cause of the accident. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Image size

In the documentation, it state that the "image_size" field "defaults to 230 if blank". However, this does not appear to be working, an the inamge is shown at full size. I think perhaps too many cooks have been stirring the broth here. Perhaps it's time to semi-protect the template? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

@BilCat: - it's still not working, so I'm going to remove it for now. Mjroots (talk) 10:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

now fixed, but the default is 260 Frietjes (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

De-link 'Registration'?

The Registration label in the infobox is the only one that is wiki-linked (linking – not inappropriately – to Aircraft registration), so it looks oddly out, among all the other labels. Indeed, it's rather uncommon for infobox labels to be wiki-linked in general (for the same reason as WP:BOLDTITLE, I would suggest). It would be better to link Aircraft registration normally, from the article body, considering that the word 'registration' is almost always mentioned there (e.g. "the aircraft involved, registration N12345, ...") I'm happy to look through all the articles that transclude 'Infobox aircraft occurrence' and add links to Aircraft registration where missing. --Deeday-UK (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree, I suspect it was done to hide the fact the field is called tail-number! which is not always understood to be the same thing by different people. There has been a suggestion that we actually add an additional field for "serial number" for military aircraft. That said I dont see why registration needs to be linked. MilborneOne (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Dates

A concensus was reached that dates should be in dmy format except for US militayr aviation/. Please use 24 February 1993 (1993-02-24) for dates in occurrence infoboxes!!--Petebutt (talk) 09:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Adding SKYbrary as a parameter?

I propose adding a link to the SKYbrary site as a parameter in the infobox. There are other sites with this information (in fact the last year it was proposed to add the ASN entry but no consesus was reached), but SKYbrary was created by EUROCONTROL, ICAO, and the Flight Safety Foundation, so can be considered representative information. Currently some articles use the Template:SKYbrary A&SI, so the approach could be the same (tile page, and incident type). Thanks for any feedback! —surueña 06:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Not sure it needs to be in the infobox, if SKYbrary has content that adds to the article as you said a template is available to add to the bottom of the article. MilborneOne (talk) 12:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Injuries and fatalities

Why does the number injured come before the number of fatalities? It's usual to report the number of fatalities first, and secondly the number of injured. At 2015 Shoreham Airshow crash, for example, it seems very odd to have the number of fatalities beneath the number injured. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that is a point of view. Richard 08:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Umm... yes, but it is the usual point of view. What is your point? Most incidents say "there were X people killed, and Y people injured". They do not say "there were X people injured, and Y people killed". So, the infobox does not accord with usual practice. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think here was any logic in the order so I don't have a problem with it being tweaked. MilborneOne (talk) 11:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle has got a fair point. The number of fatalities is also a more important parameter to determine the notability of an accident in the first place. The guidelines for inclusion of accidents and incidents into aviation articles cite human loss of life as first criterion. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

If you are going to rearrange, I think swapping just these two would be best (as suggested), leaving the order fatalities - injuries - missing - survivors. Richard 08:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Infobox image size

Per WP:IMGSIZE, we should respect a user's preference to any size. Mine is "400px". Instead of "260px", "upright=#.##" should be used, like Template:infobox television. --George Ho (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Done Alakzi (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Does a similar change also need to be done for the plane1_image, plane2_image, and plane3_image parameters? They seem to hard wire to a default 180px. Maybe we should just introduce 'image_upright' (already done), plane1_image_upright, plane2_image_upright, and plane3_image_upright to finish it out, defaulting to '1'? If done that way, I'll fix up the TemplateData documentation and deprecate image_size, to reflect it. Skybunny (talk) 05:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Could I suggest you make your proposed changes to Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence/sandbox and do some testing to make sure everything is working as intended? Please reactivate this request when ready — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_aircraft_occurrence/sandbox&oldid=728382132 looks good from here. It uses plane1/2/3_/image_upright when available (defaulting to 1), and falls back to image_size if not explicitly declared, and falls back to defaults if neither are. I tested around with this a bit with Tenerife airport disaster (multiple aircraft) and American Airlines Flight 11 (a single aircraft) and both seem to accept these parameters in a rational way, but feel free to check my work. If and when this IS implemented, the docs should be updated to indicate the presence of the 'upright' parameters. If included explicitly in the documentation at all, image_size should be shown as deprecated or discouraged. Skybunny (talk) 01:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Skybunny: please update the docs — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@MSGJ: done! Please have a look. Skybunny (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Turns out I made a small error in the ImageInfobox template transclusions. It makes the captions for plane1/2/3 not display as it should. (The overall 'image' at the top of the infobox does and always has worked; it's the individual aircraft ones that have issues. Docs already assume this works as the fix suggests.) The fix is three lines, and is here, tested in the sandbox. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_aircraft_occurrence/sandbox&oldid=728623702 Can this version be deployed live, please? Thanks - Skybunny (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Looked at testcases section 5, and see what you mean. Change looks fine, synced. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 15:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

New fields suggestion

I would like to suggest new fields to the infobox - "captain" and "first officer". The pilots have been very often playing a crucial role in the outcome of the accident (both positive and negative). Some of them have own articles on EN Wiki. Therefore, also for the sake of clarity and reader's convenience, I'd like to suggest adding those two fields to the infobox, and naming both pilots by name in accident articles. Please let me know what do you think. - Darwinek (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - A lot of aircraft don't have a Captain or First Officer and in a lot of cases if they do they are normally not notable enough to mention in the article never mind the infobox. MilborneOne (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - Pilots only play important role on flight operation, rather than normal business running and strategy planning for the airline company. Certainty there would be some enterprise officers work as pilot for any longer or shorter term, but they are still initially work as company leaders, not a simple captain or pilot. --Gzyeah (talk) 07:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - mostly per MilborneOne, but also due to BLP issues. Mjroots (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

References in infoboxes

There should not be a reference link in the infobox since it makes the infobox look lackluster and confusing. My edit in Pakistan International Airlines Flight 661 where I omitted the references that were attached to the number of passengers, crew, and fatalities was reverted despite being mentioned in the article. My question is: Are they prohibited or vice versa? If they are not, they should be as you don't cite the same piece of information twice in an article regardless of it being in an infobox or not. Tntad (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Tntad: I agree with your point; in fact I was going to clean up that infobox myself. The problem with your edit is that it removed the cited source from the article altogether, breaking all the other named references (like <ref name=CNN/>) that referred to the one you removed. What you need to do is move whatever is between the <ref> tags in the infobox to the first occurrence of the same named reference in the article body – see what I mean in my next edit on the same article. --Deeday-UK (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I had no idea my edit did that even though I checked twice. Thanks for making it clear, it was that the description of the revert was unclear as to what the issue was. Tntad (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

In general the infobox should contain nothing that is not also in the main body of the article (except perhaps an image or a map)? But I have seen citations added to infoboxes when something has been in dispute e.g. the cause of an accident. Is this permissible? What if an image caption needs a source? Would that be acceptable?Martinevans123 (talk) 12:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

p.s. if you thought that one was problematic, take a look at this one. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Fatality/Survivor Redundancy

example

Occurrence
Passengers	X
Crew	Y
Fatalities	0 (none)

I'm hoping to get some consensus on this since it seems to pop up somewhat regularly. In incidents where either everyone survives or everyone dies, is it necessary to add the zeroed parameter? For example: Plane A crashes on landing and everyone lives, the infobox would read "Survivors 77(all)" so would it be necessary to add "Fatalities 0"? Sario528 (talk) 13:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It is somewhat redundant, but not something to be addressed in the infobox. When applicable, you can always choose to use only one of the parameters and not the other one. Richard 08:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Infobox template change request as "Operator" row causing confusion

We had a disagreement ( please see details on Talk:Turkish_Airlines_Flight_6491) on "operator" section of the table for Turkish Airlines Flight 6491 as aircraft involved was leased.
I went through SFN database and noticed they have 2 rows for those aircraft accidents involving leased aircraft.

As an example please see record of Turkish Airlines Flight 6491 on SFN > https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20170116-0

Therefore my suggestion is as below.

We need to change "Operator" to "Operating for" & add another row "Leased from" for those accidents involving leased aircraft.

i.e.:

Operating for :Turkish Airlines
Leased from :MyCargo Airlines

CaptainMega (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose any change, one operators line in the infobox is OK anything more complex can be explained in the article, also note that ASN is not always a reliable source and we have no reason to copy how others do it. MilborneOne (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• It's not about "copying what others are doing", it's about getting the facts right and stop causing further disagreements. ASN is one of the most reliable source out there as their references clearly listed on references pages including CAA, ICAO & NTSB, full list is here > https://aviation-safety.net/database/ref.php . Also please see the article where BBC transport correspondent says "Another respected organization, the Aviation Safety Network" on http://www.bbc.com/news/business-31133246

Hope this helps. CaptainMega (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Aircraft name error

While editing British Airways Flight 149 for some other reason, the error "Warning: Page using Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence with unknown parameter "Aircraft Name" (this message is shown only in preview)" is shown at the top in the preview. Can someone tell me what is to be corrected?--PremKudva^Talk 11:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

|Aircraft Name= is not a valid parameter, according to the template's documentation. You may want to use |plane1_name=, a documented parameter that should work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I have tweaked it in the article to "aircraft_name" which appears to work. MilborneOne (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Sugestion: Add a map

I see some articles with maps where the accidente happened, it should be included in this template. Maxtremus (talk) 01:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

There is a parameter named 'image' which could be used – unless it's already used for some other image of course. Richard 06:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Using aircraft and helicopter_name, type, image and other fields

Can someone put the aircraft/helicopter1/2/3_name/type/image and other fields in the template -- PK2 (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Tailnumber parameter

With the attention being given to this template at the moment, I'd like to raise something that has been bugging me for years; this is the tailnumber parameter. This is used for accidents involving civilian and military aircraft, but invariably displays as "registration"; military aircraft have tail numbers or serial numbers, but only very rarely do they have registrations. If changes are going to be made to the template, let's make one more at the same time; perhaps tail_number would continue to display as "registration" and we add mil_number displaying as "tail number" or "military serial". YSSYguy (talk) 08:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there a word that covers both registrations and serials? Also might be worth renaming (or installing as an alternative) a better parameter name than "tailnumber" GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

We discussed this a long time ago, when it was changed to display "registration" rather than the "tail number" as it looked daft for civilian aircraft. Dont like the term tailnumber as is means different things to different people but happy to go with additional serial number field for military stuff and dont have a problem with "military serial". MilborneOne (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Tried to look how to add a new fields Military Serial as "mil-serial"/"plane1_milserial" and "plane2_milserial" but cant work out how it is done, it used to be a lot easier but perhaps we need somebody to add this for us. MilborneOne (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Investigative authority field

Should we add an "investigative authority” field? In many cases, this authority is different from the air safety agency of the state of registration. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 18:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that really belongs in the article text, if required, not in the infobox. The infobox is really for quick data for readers on the basic numbers on what happened, type of aircraft involved, etc. - Ahunt (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Total and ground casualties

Issue

I've seen a lot of issues on different pages using this template, involving casualty counts (a good example is this edit on American Airlines Flight 191). I do get (and agree with) editors and readers who feel there should be clarity on the numbers provided. It shouldn't be hard to tell how many people were aboard a plane, how many fatalities were aboard the plane versus on the ground, whether or not everyone aboard the plane died, etc.

There's also some inconsistency in the way pages using this template deal with the clarity issue. Some of them have "(all)" next to the fatalities to indicate everyone aboard the plane died. Editors on other pages have tried to add this and are reverted. It's common to see the infobox cluttered with clarifying text like "(x on the aircraft, y on the ground)"

Proposed solution

I've made some edits that are located in Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence/sandbox (testcases appear in Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence/testcases). The main features of this revision are:

• Adding a new "ground casualties" section that only appears when new parameters |ground_fatalities= and/or |ground_injuries= are used.
• Added optional ability to display total counts aboard an aircraft, using new parameters |aboard=, |plane1_aboard=, |plane2_aboard=, and |plane3_aboard=
• Making total fatalities appear separately from aircraft fatalities. Previously, "total" casualties wouldn't be displayed for single-aircraft incidents. Now you can provide and display casualty values broken down into total / aircraft / ground, even with single-aircraft incidents.
• Reordering items for consistency. Passengers/Crew/Fatalities/Survivors now appear in the same place in the aircraft description, regardless of whether the incident was single-aircraft or multi-aircraft.

This allows editors to add broken down casualty figures, without having to clutter a field with parenthetical details.

Example

Implementing the new infobox template won't fix all of the problems right away. But the new template and parameters allow editors to clean up these infoboxes over time, while reducing future conflict on what should and shouldn't go in the infobox. In the meantime, current uses of the infobox will continue to work:

Current template	Sandbox template	Sandbox with cleanup
Current template, infobox copied from recent AA 191 revision; I removed the inline <ref></ref> tags	Same infobox code, with sandbox template (this shows my sandbox version plays well with current infoboxes, even without cleanup edits)	Sandbox template with cleaned up infobox: removal of extraneous casualty text added parameters |total_fatalities=, |total_injuries=, |occupants=, |ground_fatalities=, and |ground_injuries=
American Airlines Flight 191 N110AA, the aircraft involved in the accident, shown here at Chicago O'Hare Int'l Airport in 1974. Accident summary Date May 25, 1979 Summary Loss of control caused by engine detachment due to improper maintenance Site Des Plaines, Illinois, United States (Near O'Hare International airport) Passengers 258 Crew 13 Fatalities 273 (all 271 on the aircraft, 2 on the ground) Injuries (non-fatal) 2 (on the ground) Survivors 0 Aircraft type McDonnell Douglas DC-10-10 Operator American Airlines Registration N110AA Flight origin O'Hare International Airport, Chicago, Illinois Destination Los Angeles International Airport, Los Angeles, California	American Airlines Flight 191 N110AA, the aircraft involved in the accident, shown here at Chicago O'Hare Int'l Airport in 1974. Accident Date May 25, 1979 Summary Loss of control caused by engine detachment due to improper maintenance Site Des Plaines, Illinois, United States (Near O'Hare International airport) Aircraft Aircraft type McDonnell Douglas DC-10-10 Operator American Airlines Registration N110AA Flight origin O'Hare International Airport, Chicago, Illinois Destination Los Angeles International Airport, Los Angeles, California Passengers 258 Crew 13 Fatalities 273 (all 271 on the aircraft, 2 on the ground) Injuries 2 (on the ground) Survivors 0	American Airlines Flight 191 N110AA, the aircraft involved in the accident, shown here at Chicago O'Hare Int'l Airport in 1974. Accident Date May 25, 1979 Summary Loss of control caused by engine detachment due to improper maintenance Site Des Plaines, Illinois, United States (Near O'Hare International airport) Total fatalities 273 Total injuries 2 Aircraft Aircraft type McDonnell Douglas DC-10-10 Operator American Airlines Registration N110AA Flight origin O'Hare International Airport, Chicago, Illinois Destination Los Angeles International Airport, Los Angeles, California Occupants 271 Passengers 258 Crew 13 Fatalities 271 Survivors 0 Ground casualties Ground fatalities 2 Ground injuries 2
Casuality parameters used: |passengers = 258 |crew = 13 |injuries = 2 (on the ground) |fatalities = 273 (all 271 on the aircraft, 2 on the ground) |survivors = 0	Casuality parameters used: |passengers = 258 |crew = 13 |injuries = 2 (on the ground) |fatalities = 273 (all 271 on the aircraft, 2 on the ground) |survivors = 0	Casuality parameters used: |occupants = 271 |passengers = 258 |crew = 13 |fatalities = 271 |survivors = 0 |total_fatalities = 273 |total_injuries = 2 |ground_fatalities = 2 |ground_injuries = 2

You can see some additional examples on Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence/testcases, though they compare identical text and don't demonstrate the cumulative effect of template changes and text edits over time.

Discussion

Please let me know what you think. Shelbystripes (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Seem like a reasonable idea to move to "Sandbox with cleanup", only thing I could see is that I would prefer "Persons onboard" rather than aboard, but that may be an engvar issue. MilborneOne (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with that edit. In fact, I like it. Shelbystripes (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Why not just Occupants, instead of 'Persons aboard/onboard'? shorter and no less clear. 'Persons aboard' would be necessary for clarity if there was such an item as 'Animals aboard', which is not the case, or is it? --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Occupants does sound right for an aircraft, it would never be used by realiable sources. MilborneOne (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Occupants needs to be knocked on the head. Nothing wrong with "Crew" and "Passengers". As for a separate Ground fatalities and Ground injuries, that is something that should be adopted. Mjroots (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

MilborneOne, googling 'aircraft occupants' seems to return only reliable sources: scientific papers, FAA, CAA, mainstream media... Mjroots, the idea is to put 'Occupants' alongside 'Passengers' and 'Crew', not in place of; any other reason why it should be 'knocked on the head'? --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I would support the third example. - Ahunt (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I've edited things to change |aboard= to |occupants= to demonstrate what "Occupants" would look like. This can be reverted based on final consensus. Shelbystripes (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ahunt and MilborneOne: Just to be clear, I'm only proposing one new template. The same sandbox template is used to display the second and third examples. The second example is the sandbox template, with the current AA Flight 191 text (to show what the sandbox template will do before editors revise an accident article). The third example is the same sandbox template, but after the variables used in the AA Flight 191 infobox have been updated to use the new template. I've updated the table above to show how the parameters need to change. Someone will have to make those changes on each accident article to get the full ("third example") benefits of the template, but I'm happy to do that on as many articles as I can, myself.Shelbystripes (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Yup, understood, this would be a replacement template. - Ahunt (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

How about now? 'Summary' is already an infobox item, so calling the whole section 'Accident summary' is slightly confusing; the section could simply be titled 'Accident' (or whatever occurrence_type), which is naturally followed by the 'Aircraft' section. --Deeday-UK (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Understand that this is a replacement template, still happy with that. An I am happy help roll this out as required with the additional fields, we would not expect you to do it all yourself. MilborneOne (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

This (the third example) is a much improved infobox, with clean parameters that eliminate the need for appurtenant details to be listed in small type. I think occupants is perfectly fine. Regarding aboard vs on board vs onboard, according to Grammarist "Onboard is one word (sometimes hyphenated—on-board) when it comes before the noun it modifies. The two-word on board usually means the same as aboard, and aboard would usually work in place of those two words. But aboard would not make sense as a replacement for the single word onboard." Also: (1) Occupants works alone because (2) 'Occupants on board' is redundant. Finally, (3) the mentioning of people on the ground affected by a crash, either injured or dead, should be called 'non-occupants' as in non occupants killed. "On the ground" is a misnomer. If you look at the Tenerife crash, all the people killed on Pan Am flight 1736 should be classified as "on the ground" deaths because that's where they were, when they died — not flying and on the ground. Calling them non-occupants carries an accuracy that "on the ground" does not. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 17:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Ground casualties may not be rigorously accurate, but I would leave it for the sake of simplicity. It quite naturally suggests "casualties among people who were all the time on the ground and were unconnected with any of the above flying machines". --Deeday-UK (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

What's happening with this proposal, are we not adopting it? --Deeday-UK (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself. I like the third example from the left. But the parameters for total fatalities were wrong, I corrected them.Spintendo      04:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, let's move on this consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Do we need to find somebody who can make these changes for us, or at least explain in plain english how to do it! MilborneOne (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Template edit request

Per the above consenus, please replace the contents of the template with the contents of the sandbox at special:diff/818509622 BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done do let me know of any problems — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 20 April 2018

remove the "don't add all in the info box if survivors is 0 its redundent". not true. RedProofHill123 (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

You could do it yourself, since that text is not part of the template's source code, but of the documentation instead. However, the subject is still being discussed (above). --Deeday-UK (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)