Template talk:Infobox software/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Subtemplates

Moved from User talk:MSGJ

I was just starting to look at {{Infobox Software}} after dealing with {{LSR}} and {{LPR}} and noticed you made some recent changes there. Is there a reason why you've moved the "preview" version above the "stable" version? The "preview" (hence unstable/test) version really should not be featured more prominently than the "stable" version. I'm not sure if you saw the changes I made to these parameters for {{Infobox OS}} but some of the code I rewrote there might be applicable to {{Infobox Software}} too.

Would you also have a look at my comments on Talk:Pidgin (software)#Latest preview? I'm currently thinking on how to better handle those cases. On one hand the preload feature makes the latest stable software version and latest preview software version subtemplates easy to use and deals with some of the past gripes (such as this), on the other hand, there may be someone who complains if the links are always enabled when say frequently_updated = is set. It seems like whoever implemented the preload support was working towards this anyway.

While I can understand the reasoning for having some of these templates protected due to usage, this certainly does make updating them a hassle...

--Tothwolf (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime I suppose I'll try a few things with {{Infobox Software/sandbox}}. Tothwolf (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

See the changes and edit summary I've made here [1] Tothwolf (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll have a look there tomorrow. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget about the code in {{Infobox Software/sandbox}}. I didn't want to put an editprotected on it since you were working on it recently. Tothwolf (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I did forget! I'll come and look now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Won't removing these [2] prevent the #ifexist checks from being done though? Tothwolf (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No, that's inside the conditional. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that. It would work either way, but no point in having redundancy. Tothwolf (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think there was any particular reason why preview version was higher than the stable version. So essentially, you are proposing to give precedence to the parameters {{{latest_release_version}}}, {{{latest_release_date}}}, {{{latest_preview_date}}} and {{{latest_preview_version}}} over the parameter {{{frequently_updated}}}? So that, if both systems are in use, it will display the values it is fed rather than ones in a subtemplate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, the code in the sandbox allows the latest_release_version = and latest_preview_version = parameters to override the subtemplates if those parameters defined for the infobox template itself. Tothwolf (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well, that seems reasonable. I didn't consider which should take precedence - I merely sorted out the problem whereby both could be displayed. Should we leave this a day in case anyone else has a comment? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, the current code has been in place since May 20th so another day certainly won't hurt anything. I noticed the same issue of this infobox accepting both the parameters and transcluding the subtemplates at the same time while dealing with Linux and Linux kernel. One of the first things I fixed was {{Infobox OS}} since it didn't support the frequently_updated parameter, so there was no way to disable use of subtemplates. I guess the next stage will be figuring out how best to handle the subtemplate preload stuff, I've got a couple of ideas and some pseudocode though. Tothwolf (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No responses, so  Done. Seems no one actually watches this page, they just come here when something is wrong :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't surprise me really, these templates are just "magic" anyway right? ;) Tothwolf (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Engine addition to this template

{{editprotected}}I have tried to add another entry (engine) to the infobox for "Infobox Software" but only administrators can do that. I have added engine descriptions to Firefox, Google Chrome, Opera, Konqueror, Epiphany and Safari. These changes will not be visible until an administrator edits the "Infobox Software" template. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.45.176.174 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done Ruslik_Zero 19:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The scope of the proposed engine field should be better documented before it can be used. Does this (a) only refer to layout engines for browsers or (b) also to more broadly defined "engines" for any kind of software? If (a) is the case, isn't this too specific for a generic software infobox? If what is meant by "engine" is (b), I'm afraid the definition is too vague to be of any use. I'd suggest we create a browser infobox with dedicated fields instead of adding further application-specific fields to the general software infobox. --DarTar (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Whether option a or b is finally decided. The engine must be included since it is an important piece of information just like the programming language it is written in or the languages it is available in. I was surprised it was not included before. Also, not only browsers have engines, 3D games also have engines and other bulky programs.83.45.176.174 (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I would have preferred to see this change done in the template's sandbox to allow for discussion and fine tuning before adding it to the template. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right, but experience tells me that when things are talked about, nobody does anything. It is better to act, especially when the modification is an improvement.83.45.176.174 (talk) 11:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

In the case of this template, it seems a number of us have it watchlisted (I've done some work on the version display and have plans for some additional improvements) so if a change has merit it will likely get done. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that, if we choose option (b) then anything that is generically required to run software can be considered an engine. Between (1) the rendering engine of a browser, (2) the 3D engine running a videogame, (3) the core of an OS, (3) the programming framework on which a Web application is built or (3) the core application that can be extended via plugins/addons there's not much in common other than the name. The notion of a rendering engine makes perfect sense, but for browsers only --DarTar (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

1.)Making a new infobox for browsers and just for 1 parameter makes no pragmatic sense. There are only 6 major browsers, the rest have nearly no market share.2.)The core of an OS is called a kernel and they have their own infobox anyway.3.)Video games have their own infobox with "engine" already included.4.)The "engine" is a legitimate part of a software and should be included in the infobox. 83.45.176.174 (talk) 11:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really too sure about it myself and I can see both sides. Another option would be to pass a parameter through, for a definable entry, but the infobox would still have to be hardcoded to display it at a set place in the infobox. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Browser infobox proposal. There would be loads of relevant fields to add to a browser-specific template, not just "engine". ACID test performance or Web standards support are just a few examples, but you can find a huge list of relevant features that could be potentially included in a browser infobox here. As to the number of browsers, I don't see the point of the market share. We use the softwar infobox for all sort of obscure products. All entries in this list could have a browser infobox, and they are far more than 6.--DarTar (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. ACID test performance is a good idea.83.45.176.174 (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted this for now. Please replace the request if/when you decide what the parameter should be for. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}Nobody seems interested in this discussion. Administrator: Can the "engine" addition be re-introduced in the template for the time being? Thanks. 83.45.176.174 (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've created {{Infobox web browser}} per the above discussion. I have not added any of the other parameters that have been discussed except for engine =. It has /sandbox and /testcases subpages so any other parameters can be added and tested there. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

request

Can you remove <includeonly> </includeonly> for all label (example : author) and after put a <includeonly> before {{Infobox then a </includeonly> before <noinclude>. Thanks in advance, regards — Neustradamus (✉) 00:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This was done intentionally to allow all parameters to show when viewing the Template:Infobox software page. You might also wish to check with MSGJ. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

with an example in doc, why put an other ? — Neustradamus (✉) 02:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. This was handy before doc pages were common, but it just bloats the template code now (and makes it harder to read in the process). I'd rather this were removed, which also makes it easier to confirm that the template collapses to nothing if all parameters are omitted (as should be the case). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Use of proper size units

" size in megabytes "

shouldn't it be "mebibytes"? --Ondra.pelech (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Latest maintenance release

Can Latest Maintenance release be viewed in this template. Administrators prefer to used a maintained release with no new feature , than to go with yet unmaintained release with cutting edge features . for example sometimes 1.10 is prefered than 2.0 , and may be 1.10 is released after 2.0 , but it is never shown in template Melnakeeb (talk) 07:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. It has also been suggested in Template talk:Infobox OS. If no one opposes, I think it should be added. --Waldir ^talk 12:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Line break before release date

{{editprotected}} If both release_version and release_date are specified, the release date is shown on a new line (actually, the release version is enclosed in <p>), see e.g. ASP.NET MVC Framework. To fix this, newline between them should be removed. The code should look like this after the change: Thanks. Svick (talk) 12:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I've removed your code. This is what the /sandbox is for :)  implemented — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Forks

{{editprotected}} Can someone add a "Forks" field? That would be useful for a lot of open source software. Balabiot (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template.. You'll need to get some discussion going on this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

engine

plz enter a label engine

like this,

| label8 = engine

| data8 = {{{engine}}}--777sms (talk) 06:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

these information

this page has a sentence that says "Unfortunately, these information are very technical". unfortunately, i can't fix it, so maybe somebody else can :) --Richlv (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Colonies Chris, 5 March 2011

{{edit protected}} Please unlink the subheading 'Website' - it's just an ordinary widely understood word (especially by users of this infobox!), so it doesn't need to be wikilinked, per WP:OVERLINK.

Colonies Chris (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Screenshotcaption leftflush with "collapsible = yes", centred without

If an infobox contains "collapsible = yes", the screenshotcaption is leftflush. Without it, the screenshotcaption is centred.

Since Centred seems to be the desirable thing (judging from for instance the use of GIMP as example in this template), shouldn't they all be? Or maybe "collapsible = yes" should be changed to centre the screenshotcaption? Jontajonta (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Relative date

I'm looking at App_Store_(iOS), which reads "Initial release: July 10, 2008; 2 years ago". This sounds really strange, as today is July 2, 2011, and I would never say that 2008-07-10 is "2 years ago". I suggest we write "2.5 years ago" at the midpoint and switch to "nearly 3 years ago" 1 month before the 3 years arrive. Comments? Max Legroom (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

How about 197 months ago? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I see that that this (magnitude=months) already works, but for normal people "35 months ago" isn't really that understandable. Max Legroom (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think neither 2.5 years nor 35 months are good options. Why not just use the obvious "3 years and 10 months" or, if it needs to be more specific, "3 years, 10 months and 3 days"? Seems the proper solution to me... --SF007 (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Is that already implemented? Max Legroom (talk) 10:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Application identifiers

I think application identifiers should be added in to the template. Specifically, creator codes and uniform type identifiers should be listed in the infobox as creator code and uniform type. {{infobox file format}} has a uniform type and type code parameters for identification.

For example: iTunes has both a UTI and a legacy creator code, so the following two lines would be added:

| uniform type = <samp>com.apple.itunes</samp>
| creator code = <samp>hook</samp>

And it would result in an addition that looks something like this:

Uniform Type Identifier	com.apple.itunes
Creator code	hook

Thoughts? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd really like a caretaker of the template's opinion on this. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 17:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Dur, I forgot about putting up an {{edit protected}}. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 17:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

N Not done. This request is not actionable because you have not provided the code you propose to add to the template. I recommend creating a working draft in a sandbox first and reactivating the request.  Sandstein  21:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

TfD notification

I have nominated all old unused stable/preview release template subpages for deletion at TfD. Feel free to comment. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 21:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Order of operating systems in documentation

As part of trying to win an edit war explained at Talk:LibreOffice#Order_of_operating_systems_listed_in_infobox a user has reordered the list of operating systems, from a neutral alphabetical order to what he or she seems to perceive is order of importance. I have reverted this as it clearly violates WP:NPOV and brought it here for discussion and consensus. I contend that the original template documentation was correct and where multiple operating systems are listed they should remain in alphabetical order for reasons of neutrality. - Ahunt (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

A WikiProject or dispute resolution board would be a better place to discuss this than on a template talk page. I've chipped in over there, however. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Programming paradigm

Hi, Why Programming paradigm in not in the box ? --Adam majewski (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Insert a label engine

like this,

| label8 = engine

| data8 = {{{engine}}}

Thanks in advance.--777sms (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Anomie⚔ 02:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Shrink "[+/−]" to "[±]"

The little [+/−] glyph that provides an edit link to frequently-updated software version templates (at the end of the data4= and data5= parameter values) is wide enough to often add an extra line in already-narrow infoboxes. I think it could be profitably shrunk. I was first thinking of using <small>, but then realized that the ± symbol was available and would shrink horizontal space even more. I haven't negotiated a consensus, but it's a sufficiently cosmetic change that I'd be inclined to just WP:be bold and change it and see if anyone complains. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It's easier to miss now, so someone may contest this. But I have applied your change in the spirit of WP:BOLD. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 January 2012

How many times have you seen a non-free image deleted? I have seen many. However, when it comes to logos of infoboxes, they are most of the times not tagged with {{ffdc|1=Ffd|log=2012 January 13}} because this tag disfigures the infobox. I propose the following change to the infobox. Change the following code:

| above      = {{{logo|}}}
| image      = {{#if:{{{collapsible|}}}|{{hidden begin|title=Screenshot|titlestyle=text-align:center}}}}{{{screenshot|}}}
| caption    = {{{caption|}}}{{#if:{{{collapsible|}}}|{{hidden end}}}}

Into the following:

| image      = {{{logo|}}}
| caption    = {{{logo caption|}}}
| image2     = {{#if:{{{collapsible|}}}|{{hidden begin|title=Screenshot|titlestyle=text-align:center}}}}{{{screenshot|}}}
| caption2   = {{{caption|}}}{{#if:{{{collapsible|}}}|{{hidden end}}}}

A test in the sandbox shows that this code works even if the logo is omitted.

Fleet Command (talk) 07:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

So... if I understand correctly... in simple terms this would make it easy to tag images that are in risk of deletion, with the purpose of alerting readers/editors of the articles? Well, assuming there are no "side effects", you have all my support. --SF007 (talk) 07:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

None whatsoever. It relies on the underlying {{Infobox}} and its two parameters: image and image2. Fleet Command (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Done: thanks for this neat bit of code improvement, and sorry it took so long. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 January 2012

Add a footnotes section

TBrandley (talk) 07:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Am I correct to assume you are proposing something similar to footnote parameter in {{Infobox web browser}}?

Regards,

Fleet Command (talk) 08:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Please detail the specific changes you'd like made so that less code-literate admins like yours truly can respond. Danger ^{High voltage!} 11:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Introduce this template together with LSR and LPR into "Wikimedia Commons" and use it in all languages

I suggest to make it possible to use the three templates

1. Template:Infobox software
2. Template:LSR (Latest Stable Release) and
3. Template:LPR (Latest Preview Release)

in all wikipedias. Is this possible? Doors5678 (talk) 10:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

To answer myself: the projects meta:GlobalTemplates and meta:Wikidata are what I was looking for. Sadly it's heavy WIP. Doors5678 (talk) 10:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Problem with computation of software age

I noticed, that the age of software is not computed correctly: I looked at the Workrave page on April 20, 2012, and it said that the stable release is "1.9.4 / April 5, 2011; 11 months ago". Then, after probably 10-15 minutes, it said "12 monts ago". I have a screenshot, though

Age problem (taken on 2012-04-20)

--Ivant (talk) 09:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Which processor architectures to list for open source software?

Hi! Some time ago we had a discussion at the LibreOffice talk page. We are unsure which processor architectures to list in the article's infobox. LibreOffice is open source software and can be built for many different computer architectures. In the download section of the LibreOffice website binaries for three different processor architectures are available at the moment. However some Linux distributions provide LibreOffice for other processor architectures as well and LibreOffice tracks issues for the ARM platform in its bug tracker even though there are no official binaries for ARM.

Currently the documentation for this infobox says that terms like "cross-platform" should be avoided and a list of platforms should be given either in the infobox or in the article body. However it's very difficult to give an extensive list of supported platforms for open source software because anyone could try to compile and install on any platform.

I'd like to have some guideline on what to do for open source software. Possible guidelines could be:

• don't list any architectures
• Only list architectures for which there are official binaries provided by the authors of the software
• List all architectures for which binaries are available by any provider
• List all architectures on which the software can be built

What do you think?--Marko Knoebl (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Templates for discussion: LPR and LSR

The templates {{LPR}} and {{LSR}} are being discussed at WP:Templates for discussion#Template:LPR and WP:Templates for discussion#Template:LSR. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)