If you have a better way to do the template merge, I'm all for it, especially if the whitespace looks better as a result. I'm just using fairly basic find/replace rules. And I've love to see how you avoid duplicate parameters.Phuzion (talk)12:45, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Phuzion: let's chat here. I'm going to createUser:Phuzion/aircraft as a substitution template. I'm not going to do the entire thing, but I'll make the initial few parameters and then show you how to use it. I think you will like this solution. Full disclosure I've got a lot going on this weekend so bare with me while I get this mocked up. I'll ping you when I've got it in a good place and show you how to use it..Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)18:06, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great, I appreciate the help! I'm relatively busy myself right now as well, so I will likely only be able to really dig into this in a day or two.Phuzion (talk)18:26, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Phuzion: ok so I got on a roll and basically finished thesubstitution template... It ABSOLUTELY needs proofreading and testing to make sure it doesn't have typos in it, but technically it is basically there. Please look at the code and try to understand what it does as this will help you find errors and typos
A brief overview...
To make it work you want to call{{safesubst:User:Phuzion/aircraft... This will then activate the code to substitute the bulk of the template.
When you look at the code, the stuff on the left (before the equals sign) is what is going to appear when substituted. The stuff on the right is what value will be placed after the equals sign.
because there are multiple stacked templates, not just ONE infobox being replaced with another, there is a few replacements that have to be made withWP:AWB regexes.
Using the testing page as an example... If you have
{|{{Infobox aircraft begin |name=Pegasus |image=Bristol-pegasus-brooklands.jpg |caption=Preserved Bristol Pegasus on display at the[[Brooklands Museum]]. The red circles are temporary blanking plates removed when the[[exhaust manifold]] is fitted}}{{Infobox aircraft engine|type=[[Reciprocating engine|Piston]][[Aircraft engine|aero engine]]|manufacturer=[[Bristol Aeroplane Company]]|first run=c.1932|major applications={{ubl|[[Fairey Swordfish]]|[[Short Sunderland]]|[[Vickers Wellington]]|[[Handley Page Hampden]]}}|number built= c.32,000|program cost=|unit cost=|developed from=[[Bristol Jupiter]]|developed into={{ubl|[[Bristol Draco]]|[[Bristol Phoenix]]}}|variants with their own articles=}}|}
You need to modify it to look like this
{{safesubst:User:Phuzion/aircraft|name=Pegasus|image=Bristol-pegasus-brooklands.jpg|caption=Preserved Bristol Pegasus on display at the[[Brooklands Museum]]. The red circles are temporary blanking plates removed when the[[exhaust manifold]] is fitted|type=[[Reciprocating engine|Piston]][[Aircraft engine|aero engine]]|manufacturer=[[Bristol Aeroplane Company]]|first run=c.1932|major applications={{ubl|[[Fairey Swordfish]]|[[Short Sunderland]]|[[Vickers Wellington]]|[[Handley Page Hampden]]}}|number built= c.32,000|program cost=|unit cost=|developed from=[[Bristol Jupiter]]|developed into={{ubl|[[Bristol Draco]]|[[Bristol Phoenix]]}}|variants with their own articles=}}
It takes theold params and transfers them to thenew params.
It also indents everything nicely.
OLD code comments are removed, new ones can be inserted
It removes ANY unknown parameters (so you don't have to manually search for and remove|unit cost= for example).
What's next
This needs some testing to make sure I haven't transposed any values (I already found that I was setting|logo={{{image}}}, it needed to be|logo={{{logo}}}). Make sure there aren't more of those.
Please read the comments I left onUser:Phuzion/aircraft. There are a few parameters I didn't map because I wasn't sure where they went...
Hey @Zackmann08, was just wondering about the change in template. Not mad or anything just wanted to make sure I was using the right templates going forward. Was there a discussion anywhere about this or is the new template improved in someway? Again not trying to be a jerk or anything I've noticed these changes popping up over the last week and wasn't sure if I just wasn't in the loop. Thanks!Dr vulpes(Talk)19:08, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC would probably be the best route to take seeing as that was brought up at TFD. But I'll leave that to y'all, but if either of you need anything feel free to ping me.Dr vulpes(Talk)20:35, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aspects so you can certaily wrap the category call in{{main other}}, however what I have found is that this just results in more problems down the road as these user sandbox and drafts are inevitably moved to the mainspace. I totally get your hesitation with editing a userspace page, but in my experience if it is done with a clear edit summary, you are usually fine. Particularly in this case where the parameter you would be removing doesn't do anything except produce an error message. The edit summary I would use would befixing infobox/removing [[:Category:Pages using infobox musical artist with associated acts|unsupported parameters]]. Hope that helps!Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)18:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the quick reply. I was not sure if what I was asking was possible to do and figured there might be problems with future article moving into mainspace. I will make sure I use an appropriate edit summary in those cases.Aspects (talk)18:50, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have boldly limited that category to article space. In *my* experience, userspace drafts often stay in userspace forever, doing no harm, and editors often get grumpy when you tweak their userspace pages to fix minor errors. IMO it's better to fix all of the article space errors, empty the category, and deal with the rare moved or copied draft when it pops up. –Jonesey95 (talk)15:57, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Before we TV editors added detection to all namespaces for our infoboxes, we kept getting parameters that were removed years ago back in mainspace. After the category included all namespaces and we did a full clear, we've never had any of those parameters return. Anecdotal, but relevant.Gonnym (talk)16:02, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all unknown parameter checks in infobox templates use{{main other}}. I think it keeps things sane. Editors will still see red error messages in Preview when they are editing, but the category doesn't get cluttered up with stale junk that will never see the light of day. I think it's a reasonable compromise. On the original subject, about 6,000 out of 67,000 pages should clear from the associated acts category once the job queue refreshes the pages. –Jonesey95 (talk)16:15, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no mention that we removed the parameter of residence from the template Infobox Tennis Biography. We were not informed and no rfc took place to remove it from our template. Please stop removing things until this is straightened out.Fyunck(click) (talk)05:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also checked since it was discussed again in 2024... it does not apply to other infoboxes like Tennis Biography. Please stop this nonsense. By we I mean the Tennis Project. That is mandatory if it is to be affected in some way. Please remove your recent changes to the template.Fyunck(click) (talk)05:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was discussed and brought up in 2024. Different Project infoboxes have different needs. It applied to Infobox Person, not every other infobox. Messing with That Tennis project infobox and hundreds of players without consultation is wrong and needs to be remedied.Fyunck(click) (talk)05:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can certainly bring the query up there on the template talk page. Perhaps it will be agreed upon, but you just dont change it without that discussion.Fyunck(click) (talk)06:00, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's de-escalate this ok? Igenuinely thought that what I was doing was going to be uncontroversial as it was covered by not 1 but2 RFC's with nearly unanimous decisions. You disagree. That is totally valid. Let's let this third RFC run its course and I will of course stand by theWP:CONSENSUS.
I would however caution you to readWP:OWNBEHAVIOR which specifically says that statements such as"Please clear this with WikiProject Z first." are examples of ownership behavior.
Fair enough. But when I say clear this with "WikiProject Z first" that is far from ownership. What I meant was you do not change something major like a parameter of a template created for WikiProject Tennis without first discussing it at WikiProject Tennis. There is a reason that template is protected, because it works for countless thousands of articles. You made a mistake in thinking all templates get covered by another template. And it looks like the golf project@Tewapack: is now involved in the dispute. These wikiprojects must be included in discussions that affect the projects involved. We aren't going to find the discussion otherwise. You also made a mistake less than a month ago in trying to merge the Infobox tennis biography with a real tennis infobox... not related infoboxes. It was an honest mistake also but perhaps you should better familiarize yourself with the Tennis Project and the sport in general before attempting these sorts of changes. The Project talk page can answer any queries you might have... it might take a couple days but we usually get back to you with any help you might need or any insight that might help. Heck we might have started a poll of members to see if they wanted to tweak the residence code to make it country only or remove it. And even in being bold and removing the residence parameter, it would really have been a requisite to inform WikiProject Tennis that thousands of articles would now be having red popups and that they were invalid. Even if we agreed, then at least multiple editors could have helped remove the attribute on thousands of articles.Fyunck(click) (talk)20:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please restore residence parameter to template Infobox golfer
.Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)18:06, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Really didn't think we needed a FOURTH RFC to clarify this issue, but apparently we do.Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)23:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]