Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes/Archive 6

Major thirds
Major thirds
	Major thirds tuning was invented by Ralph Patt
Basic information
Aliases	All thirds
Interval	Major third
Semitones	4
Example(s)	E-G♯-c-e-g♯-c'-e' D♯-G-b-d♯-g-b'-d'♯
Advanced information
Other instruments	Seven-string guitar
Repetition	After 3 strings
Advantages	Reduced hand-stretching: major and minor chords on two consecutive frets
Disadvantages	Reduced range on 6 strings
Left-handed tuning	Minor sixths tuning
Associated musician
Guitarist	Ralph Patt
Regular tunings (semitones)
	Trivial (0)
	Minor thirds (3)
	Major thirds (4)
	All fourths (5)
	Augmented fourths (6)
	New standard (7, 3)
	All fifths (7)
	Minor sixths (8)
	Guitar tunings

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

→

Infobox country request

Template talk:Infobox country#Can we add a small button to play the anthem?.Moxy (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Template loop error caused by {{Infobox UK place}}

Could somebody please try and figure out what is causing the ugly template loop error in {{Infobox UK place}} at Worfield (permanent revlink: [1])? Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Wroong region. Shropshire is West Midlands (region), not North West England. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

RFC: Deploying 'Start date' template in infoboxes

Please see Wikipedia talk:Bot requests#RFC: Deploying 'Start date' template in infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history Infobox discussion

There is a discussion going on over at WP:MILHIST relating to the use of "Infobox former country" for "Axis puppet states", the conversation would probably benefit from the input of someone with Infobox expertise. --Thefrood (talk) 22:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, the immediate issue is now solved. --Thefrood (talk) 10:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Title duplication in multi-language infobox

I hope I have expressed the problem well in my section title.

I first tried to address the problem here. It seems maybe that this project page is the place to look for the help I was seeking and that someone will be able to check it out. Thanks much. Swliv (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Question

In the current projects section, there is a title "Films Infobox" that hasn't been accessed since 2007. Shouldn't it be deleted?--Mjs1991 (talk) 02:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Death of Yasser Arafat - easy help requested

Hey guys,

I'm very new to infoboxes. I just need a quick help with putting an imagine in one infobox for the Death of Yasser Arafat.

This is the infobox code I have so far (see the infobox here). Infobox historical event

 |Event_Name     = Death of Yasser Arafat
 |Image_Name     = 
 |Imagesize      = 260px
 |Image_Alt      = Yasser Arafat's mausoleum
 |Image_Caption  = Yasser Arafat's mausoleum
 |Thumb_Time     = 
 |AKA            = 
 |Location       = Hôpital d'instruction des armées Percy in Clamart, a suburb of Paris, France
 |Date           = November 11, 2004 (2004-11-11)
 |Death          = Yasser Arafat a.k.a. Mohammed Yasser Abdel Rahman Abdel Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini aka Abu Ammar; 75
 |Result         = Yasser Arafat's body buried in the the Mukaata, which was his compound in Ramallah.

}}

For the image, I would like to use either this picture. It's defined there as 02.JPG but whenever I enter this into "Image_Name" it doesn't appear on the page. Please help! --Activism1234 21:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The image name isn't "02.JPG" but "File:Mausoleo Arafat (Muqata, Ramallah) 02.JPG". How you use this varies between infoboxes; in the specific case of {{Infobox historical event}} you would omit the "File:" part, and use |Image_Name=Mausoleo Arafat (Muqata, Ramallah) 02.JPG --Redrose64 (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much! --Activism1234 21:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Task: Move categories in documentation subpages

Categories need to be moved to documentaion supages. Here is an example that moves a category from the template page to the documentation supage. We need to find, rpobably with a database scan, these things and fix them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Task: Start cleaning pages that have New infobox in their talk page

We have to start cleaning pages that have {{New infobox}} in their talk page. Especially for persons. We just need to add Infobox person in the article page and remove any traces of old code. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Is that a suitable job for a bot? Or making the old templates wrappers for the better ones, then getting a bot to SUBST them? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if a bot can do it. Check Jan Kochanowski for instance. It uses wikitable and forces the page to load slower that it should. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeuch! I fixed that one, but I was thinking of a bot for replacing deprecated templates, rather then hard-coded tables - the latter would be too complex. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Less than 700 problems recorded but maybe there are more. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

If there are any deprecated templates that need replace we can put them here and probably I could do more of them. "New infobox" is not the best name because in the most cases what it needs fixing is hard-coded templates. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean; but there are a lot like 562 Salome, that are hard-coded, and need {{Infobox planet}}, and could perhaps be scripted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Project reborn

There is a try to revive the project. I sent messages to editros (User:WOSlinker, User:Plastikspork, User:Frietjes) who are active in the area of templates/infoboxes. There will be a series of new tasks such as cleanup the wikicode, reduce use of HTML code in the wikicode, infobox name standardisation, infobox parameters name standardisation, infobox merging, etc.

If you are registered to this project and interested to help please reconfirm your membership.
If you don't want to keep getting messages from this project please remove yourself from the list of participants
Please post your ideas of what other tasks this project should do.
Everybody is welcome to participate and recruit more people.

Happy editing. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

A nice example of what is to be done: [2]. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Membership

I've refreshed the main project page, and moved the list of members (bar a couple) to a sub-section. If you're still involved, please move your name back to the active members list. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Task: Clean up Category:Infobox military person image param needs updating

I tried to use a bot for that but there are some problems still. Bots should not fix infoboxes that contain 2 images under the |image= parameter. We should probably treat these pages differently. For instance, I don't think Medal of Honours should be dispaypled like that (check Harold C. Agerholm for instance) but I think the best is to start a discussion in colloboration with thw MILHIST project about these pages. In the case there is a single image in the infobox we should just simplify the syntax by using bare filenames. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I've invited colleagues from MILHIST to join us in this dsicussion.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Task: standardise date parameters

Some infoboxes, such as {{Infobox American championship car race report}}, don't have standard date parameters, but have, for example, |year= and |date=, with the latter taking a prose value like "14 June". this precludes the use of {{Start date}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Somewhat tangentially, we really need to push through a significant merging strategy for the many, many disparate racing templates that still exist. We have a great many overlapping templates for different racing championships and styles which differ only slightly from one another. I've previously cleaned up the NASCAR, F1 and Le Mans spaces, but there's a huge amount of additional work to be done in this area. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Task: URL parameter standardisation

Some infoboxes tak e a raw value for |URL= (aka |url= or |website=), others force it into a wikilink. The latter prevents the use of {{URL}}. We should standardise the name and formatting. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we should use |website. We should avoid CAPITAL ONLY parameters. Right? -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Generally, yes, but "URL" is usually written upper-case; and I think we should look at what is most-used, presently. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Do we have a list of infobox by this parameter? -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

None that I know of. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Chnage Infobox University to support bare filenames for images

{{Infobox university}} needs to change to support bare filenames at the |image field. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It also needs a language code for the motto; see Template talk:Infobox university#ISO code for motto language. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Templates of Redundancy Templates

The essay Templates of Redundancy Templates makes some good points, and helps to explain our work. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation which I wrote. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Regular guitar tunings

I created the following box, which summarizes the summary table in regular tunings. Comments are welcome. ~~I solicit help with the following tasks:~~

~~Adding a picture (displayed). Similar pictures were created for the other regular tunings by the mighty Hyacinth.~~
Optional: Adding an optional picture of an associated guitarist, e.g., Robert Fripp for New Standard Tuning, Shawn Lane for augmented-fourths tuning, Stanley Jordan for all-fourths tuning. This optional picture would occur at the bottom of the infobox.
~~Adding a header.~~ Updated

To maximize concordance with existing musical infoboxes, I modified the infobox for musical intervals; it lacks headers and pictures. Then I updated it to the new standard infobox. 22:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC) 22:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Help, please

CSS: How can I define a style to embolden all headers? Now, I have emboldened each individually with '''<header>''' (resulting in <header>).
Sizing. For All fourths tuning, the image of Stanley Jordan was huge. How do I manually set an upper limit on image sizes? (I thought we should avoid declaring sizes for images, but allow users to set standards with their browsers, for accessibility.)

Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Assuming that you want to bold the content of all the |headern=, these should already be boldface, because in HTML terms, they're <th>...</th> cells. I have looked at {{Infobox Regular tuning}} but I don't see any of this <header>...</header> to which you refer. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The template-infobox documentation has a headerstyle field, which accepts CSS expressions. I emboldened the headers with three accents---which may be a double emboldening (and conflict with WP:MOS...?)....? Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is a |headerstyle= parameter, and you can see it in action at {{Infobox GB station}} - that's how the headers "Location" and "Operations" get a pale grey background. Notice that although these appear to be boldface, there is no explicit bolding (whether through triple-apostrophes or CSS styling) - the bolding is inherent. There is therefore no need to add any more. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

{{Infobox comics organization}} sets a maximum image width of 250px. The technique relies on the input value being numeric, that is, the letters "px" must be omitted. For example, |imagesize=300 will correctly adjust to 250px wide, and |imagesize=200 will be preserved, yielding an image 200px wide; but |imagesize=200px is non-numeric, so it's ignored and the default width of 250px is used. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

THANKS! That looks much better now! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Infobox prime minister

{{Infobox prime minister}} is being used both on the personal page for the Prime Minister and the page about the corresponding government. This is causing erroneous {{Persondata}} and {{Authority control}} templates to be added to the government articles. See Chifley Government for the latest correction for this. I imagine any metadata generated by the infobox is also inappropriate for one or other of the articles. This affects all the Australian government articles linked in {{Governments of Australia}} and perhaps other countries? I'm not sure how best to correct this. Notified Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Infobox prime minister. --Mirokado (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Infobox political party - language parameters

Please see Template talk:Infobox political party#Language parameters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Infoboxes automobile

At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles#Yobot there is a discussion whether to expand the Infobox use. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Infobox character

Template:Infobox character doesn't support bare filnames in its image field in contrary to Infobox person. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Infobox for by-elections

We're discussing what infobox to use for by-elections. Further input would be welcome. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Rationalising railway infoboxes

Please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Rationalising infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Subtemplates

I've just created Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes/Subtemplates, to list and describe subtemplates for use within infoboxes. It transcludes {{Birth, death and age templates}}, which I also just created. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Infobox archaeological site

{{Infobox archaeological site}} could do with conversion to {{Infobox}}, addition of |alt=, |native_name_lang= and a (modern-day) |location=, and a general cleanup. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Infoboxes in the MoS

I've opened a section here about adding to the MoS that infoboxes are optional, in case anyone would like to comment. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Infobox radio station

{{Infobox radio station}} needs to switch to support bare filenames for image. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Dates in Infobox Grand Prix race report

Could someone help (with coding) at Template talk:Infobox Grand Prix race report#Date, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Stand-alone fact sheets?

See VPP discussion/proposal for fact sheets. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Infobox discussions

I nominated several infoboxes for discussion, on September 22, 23 and 24. Your comments are invited. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the best practice it to see what survives TfD and then convert them to wrappers. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment - Nick Drake

Hello,

you are invited to participate at this discussion. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 13:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Minor league infoboxes

Can someone with experience with the {{infobox}} conversion process update {{Defunct MiLB infobox}}, including making most all of the fields optional (plus if a section is empty, so there is no header). Then redirect {{Infobox Defunct MiLB (Alternate)}} to it, as it appears it was only created since the other one looked bad if logos were not available since the field was not optional. Lastly, could an image field be added at the bottom of the infobox. Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I've had a bash in {{Infobox Defunct MiLB/sandbox}} but it's not an exact replica; see Template:Infobox Defunct MiLB/testcases. I've not worked in all the changes requested above, so that you can get a first impression; the only header that is automatically hidden is the last one "Minor league titles". --Redrose64 (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Since there were only two pages using it I have redirected it and fixed it using the method that has typically been used in such situations. Though making the params non-required would be a better solution. -DJSasso (talk) 14:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox requested

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox requested#Question regarding requests for multiple WikiProjects. This regards WikiProject-related infobox requests. Gyrofrog (talk) 18:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Infobox East Asian name

A large number of the 144 transclusions of {{Infobox East Asian name}} seem to be on articles which are not about names, but about subjects which happen to be East Asian, and where more suitable infoboxes (for places, organisations , etc) exist (see, for example, Japan–Korea Treaty of 1905). Some, like Rumi Suizu, have two infoboxes; the subject specific one could perhaps use the East Asian name as a subtemplate. And do we need it for name articles? What should we do about the other cases? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Importance of infoboxes

Found via Twitter: "Eye-tracking study: Wikipedia readers look at table of contents first, then infobox, 'skim and scroll' long articles"; "many readers look only at the information box, summary text, lists, sub titles, references, or maybe only keywords": Full paper. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see a proper summary (for WP purposes by someone who's digested this, not just the authors' own abstract). The micro-description above doesn't even parse well as English (e.g. it seems to suggest the study has no idea whether people are looking at "the infobox, summary text [meaning WTF, the lead?], lists, sub titles [meaning WTF? headings? and ever heard of a hyphen?], references, or maybe [emphasis added] only keywords [meaning WTF, since our articles don't have a keywords feature?]". Not criticizing you, Andy; rather saying the "Twitvertising" of this piece is basically confused, meaningless gibberish. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 21:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Infobox school

Template:Infobox school needs conversion to use {{Infobox}}. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Footballer pages need update

Category:Infobox football biography image param needs updating has more than 15,000 pages. Images in the |image= field should be given as bare filenames. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Cricketer pages need update

I created Category:Infobox cricketer using deprecated parameters after updating infobox cricketer. We need to update the pages to use the standard parameters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Is this the sort of thing that's required? I found that I needed to remove |living=true otherwise it complained "Born Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{". {{{yearofbirth}}} (age Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{".) {{{countryofbirth}}}" --Redrose64 (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Example of what is to be done. All changes should be done at once otherwise the infobox will break. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

So my edit was correct then? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes! -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

How do you stack infoboxes?

For the article Robert Madgwick, he was almost equally notable as a university chancellor, military commander, and broadcast corporation chief. How do I stack all three infoboxes in the article so that they seamlessly connect with each other? Cla68 (talk) 12:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Getting this to work at all is iffy in many cases, and generally results in a lot of redundancy, since the name and such are going to be repeated. The last time I recall pulling it off, it required a bunch of manual CSS tweaking and wasn't fun. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 21:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I have commonly refrained from using a second infobox. For example, see #Joint biography (below) regarding multiple templates {{Infobox writer}}.

Another class of examples is articles about a book and a book series named after it, where {{Infobox book}} and {{Infobox book series}} might both be used. (Typically, I believe, a successful book generates sequels that are not considered worthy of their own articles, or do not yet have them. The series is named for the first book, perhaps informally, perhaps belatedly.)

The Snowman —quote hatnote: "about the book (1978) and its film adaptation (1982)"— is one article with two templates {{Infobox film}} and {{Infobox book}} currently in place. It works, if it does, because they are or seem easy or natural to separate in the layout. Yet, that there is ample content conveniently to separate the them may indicate that the article should be split. (One editor half-suggested a split in February (Talk: The Snowman#Layout) and the current layout is my response.) --P64 (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

See The King of Rome for a further example]], where a split would be excessive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Use the most generic infobox, {{Infobox person}}. Some of the other you mention may then be available as subsidiary modules. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Page needs infobox settlement or something similar

Santa Lucía de Tirajana. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The same holds for all pages found in List of municipalities in Las Palmas. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Check Southwest Junior College Conference too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Joint biography

Janet and Allan Ahlberg is the biography of an illustrator wife and writer husband of children's books. Talk:Janet and Allan Ahlberg carries {{Infobox request}} since February 2010.

This year I have much expanded the article. If it were the biography of one person I would have added template {{Infobox writer}} along the way. Is there a recommendation (short of splitting the article)?

See also #How do you stack infoboxes? (above).

(By the way, I have put multiple templates {{Authority control}} in the footer, which probably undermines the function. For what it's worth, I will also now initiate Template talk:Authority control#Joint biography.) --done next day -P64 2012-12-06

--P64 (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

We could have an infobox, based on {{Infobox person}}, but with two columns, like those in {{Infobox election}}. That way, we can emit metadata about each individual separately, while having rows spanning both columns, for their joint endeavours. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd very much prefer we didn't emulate {{infobox election}} unless absolutely necessary. In this specific case, the sensible approach IMO is simply to omit not-shared details (such as biographical trivia) where they would be inconvenient. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Formatting of URLs in Infoboxes

I keep hitting problems, because some infoboxes, such as {{Infobox person}} take the subject's |URL= as a bare parameter, allowing use of {{URL}}, and some have it hard coded, like {{Infobox writer}}, which has it hard-coded as {{#if:{{{website|}}}|<hr />{{URL|1={{{website|}}}}}}}. Can we standardise on one or the other? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I don't know which one would be the best. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The former allows the inclusion of comments and references; the latter will break if they are included, but is perhaps easier for novice editors to understand. Either should present the same view to our readers. I'm ambivalent about which we should use, but having two versions is dumb. I'm requesting additional comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I definitely think that the Infobox writer version is preferable, but a sitename parameter passed as the second parameter of {{URL}} would add a lot of functionality. The big problem is that these are both widely implemented templates, so any change from a link to a bare URL needs to be accompanied by a bot request to remove the [] and incorporate the sitename parameter if the link had one. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 23:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

This isn't about the two templates named, which are just examples, but all our infoboxes; it will certainly be a big change whichever way we go, but doing nothing is neither a sensible nor ultimately, a viable option. Site names should be avoided wherever possible; not only should we display the URL as a useful piece of data, but that also ensures its emitted as valid (microformat) metadata. Note also that, in {{Infobox writer}}, the URL is passed to {{URL}} within the infobox markup. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it would probably be best to list both the site name and the URL. So the code would be something like {{URL|1={{{website}}}|2={{#if:{{{sitename|}}}|{{{sitename}}}-}}{{{website}}}}}. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 23:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with VanIsaac. More functionality is better than less when it is not mandatory. And mandatory lack of, or broken, functionality is much worse that mandatorily complex functionality, which we don't seem to be contemplating anyway. I'm actually half-shocked that this wasn't resolved years ago. PS: <tt> is not for source code markup; that's what <code> is for; <tt> has be deprecated/obsolete since HTML 4 (1995) and is nonstandard/forbidden in HTML5, which is already widely deployed whether W3C calls it an official standard or not. The <tt> element, when it was valid, marked up literal, non-example machine (or machine-mediated but ultimately human) output, where it was thought important to distinguish it from other material such as example machine output, example input, literal particularly human input, human non-computer interaction (like speaking to you in person, writing in a book, etc.). Please do not abuse HMTL markup. Standards are not just important by increasingly important the more the Web is automated and the more content is repurposed by tools, and the specific markup itself has semantic meaning and purpose. Both of these concerns are (ironically) an integral part of what we're talking about here when we even bother including consideration of metadata parsing. PS: To not leave any unspoken questions open: the element for output (formerly just example output, vs. <tt>'s literal output, now verboten markup) is <samp>; example input, whether human or not, is <var>, which is also used for unknowns in code and output; literal human-to-computer input is <kbd>; and literal human[s]-to-human[s] communication – non-computer-mediated, or in a context in which mediation is irrelevant – is quoted with quotation marks, block-quoting or a paraphrase. And yes, those semantic markup tags are nestable - you can use <var> inside <code>, etc. Oh, and most of these have same-named wikimarkup wrappers, e.g. {{var}}, {{kbd}}, {{samp}}, a major exception being {{code}} which is for syntax-highlighting blocks of code and doesn't nest other templates. Which is annoying, yes. Someone else did that, over my objections. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 20:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the {{URL|Example.com}} parameter is not too difficult for Wiki editors who know how to use templates & infoboxes. My vote for using this one as a standard. Also, agreed on Vanisaacs suggestion. --Jesus Presley (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor invited by RfC bot - I'm not an expert in this sort of coding, so pardon my ignorance, but couldn't it be set up with maximum flexibility so editors could use {{URL}} or not? An editor should be able to supply any of the following:

url=cnn.com
url={{URL|cnn.com}}
website=cnn.com
website={{URL|cnn.com}}

In other words, assume that the editors are busy people with little patience to study the parameters in detail, and change all the InfoBoxes to handle those four situations intelligently. Thus: editors should not have to guess if the param is "url" or "website" ... both should work equally well. Likewise: editors should not have to guess whether or not {{URL}} is permitted. (Apologies I'm just repeating what was already proposed by VanIsaac above.) --Noleander (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's the problem right now: when you cross from one infobox to another, you don't know whether it is website=[cnn.com] or url=cnn.com or website=cnn.com or url=[cnn.com]. It is not easy or cheap (in processing power) to make those equivalent, so the best way to go forward is to standardize the input. It may just be best to have url= and sitename= work with the {{url}} template, and make sure that all the infoboxes we can find use it, so that there is no competing scheme that editors can get confused by. If editors never come across url and sitename variables that need brackets, they're not going to get confused. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 22:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like we are all in agreement that it should be more standardized. Personally, I wouldn't think to use single brackets as in url=[cnn.com]. When entering parameters in a template, I presume that the template creator handles external links for me properly, so by all means, url=cnn.com should be the preferred approach here. As for "url" vs "website", I see no problem with supporting both: aliases or synonyms are commonplace. And the {{url}} template should work as a parameter in all situations. --Noleander (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Take a close look at the URL template, though. It really is the same as allowing [ ]. The only difference is the URL template handles all the http:// ftp:// https:// stuff and regularizes the inputs. Just like a bracketed site address, the {{URL}} template should not be used as a bare input in an infobox. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 23:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Allowing the use of either |url=example.com or |url={{URL|http://example.com}} is not a problem; {{Infobox person}} already does that;; though the latter is preferable and the former should generally be converted when found. The problem is when a template like {{Infobox writer}}, which has the {{URL}} hard-coded, expects a bare URL like |url=example.com; but is given |url={{URL|example.com}}.

Also, where a URL is short we should display it, not a prose title. That isn't always feasible, though, for long URLs like http://eample.com/somesubcategory/pageid=122345?query=forbar#something-else

A second problem is that we have a variety of parameter names. Different infoboxes use |url=, |URL=, |website=, |homepage= etc. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not easy or cheap (in processing power) to make those equivalent - is it worth maybe holding back until mw:Lua templates are available? At which point making a core template to handle this sort of stuff becomes trivial. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Coordinate errors affecting multiple infoboxes

Additional error detection has been added to the {{Coord}} coordinates template. This has identified a problem where an article has two infoboxes, and each is hard coded to put its coordinates (which may not be the same) in the title location. (e.g. this page). Please see discussion at WP:GEO#Bad infoboxes. The fix will probably be to add an optional switch to set the coordinate display to inline only. This will apply to any infobox which has a hard-coded {{Coord}} coordinates template with |display=inline,title (or |display=title; though none should) We must take care that any fix doesn't remove the title coordinates in existing, single-use cases; and documentation must deprecate the use of an "inline only" display unless necessary. It would be good to have some standard code which can be used in any infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's much central work that can be done here: infoboxes will need to be fixed one-at-a-time. What would be a good idea would be to include a note to this effect on any relevant documentation pages (such as help:infobox, MOS:INFOBOX and template:infobox/doc). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Convert to use Infobox

{{Convert to use Infobox}} is now available, for infoboxes not based on {{Infobox}}, but which could be. It adds them to Category:Templates suitable for conversion to use Template:Infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

WP Infoboxes in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Infoboxes for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Infobox book

{{Infobox book}} needs to switch to support bare filenames for image. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I have put in an edit request to enable that functionality for this infobox, as it is WP:FULLY protected. Please check the template talk page to see if it has been granted. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 20:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I came with a solution that supports both bare filenames and the old style till we fix them all. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

We should start adding a (hidden) category to infoboxes needing that change. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes essay

After the long conversation at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikiproject notes in articles I believe we really need a proper essay on the debate over Infoboxes so that our readers see each side of the debate be they right or wrong (I am assuming there is not one as I cant find it). I want to just start - but think its best to do a little research on the problem first. Looking for links to debates like ( here and earlier debates here), relevant essays etc.. Would love some help and input.Moxy (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's an essay critical of infoboxes and a response essay. There's also an essay looking at an alternative to the current infobox templates. Also check out this week's WikiProject Report for comments from this project's members. –Mabeenot (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Purpose of inboxes

When I first saw them, I thought infoboxes were cute and a waste of time. Subsequently, I've heard (I believe at Wikimania 2012) that the "invisible" utility of infoboxes is that they provide structured data - crucially important for Wikidata, DBpedia, and eventually for when the Semantic Web utilizes Wikipedia in general. So I'm now all for them. (I wish there was more structured data on Wikipedia.) Right now I'm participating in groups that are arguing over infoboxes, one side also saying that they're a waste of time and effort. Is there anyplace where there is a good and convincing justification for creating/having infoboxes? -- kosboot (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I spoke on that topic at the Wikimania unconference on the Sunday. We have bits of such information scattered around the place; we should probably do more. Meanwhile see Wikipedia:microformats and Help:Microformats for information about the metadata encoded into infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this Andy. I hope it goes far in convincing more people of the necessity of infoboxes. -- kosboot (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm also drafting an essay at User:Pigsonthewing/Persondata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Mabeenot's article in the Signpost https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-02-11/WikiProject_report is a very good step - perhaps it should be partly incorporated into this article. -- kosboot (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of infoboxes

Has anyone here run into deletion of infoboxes, based on the essay alluded to in this deletion? And if so, how does one respond? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Essays are not policy, guideline, or anything except the opinion of one person. Revert the removal with impunity. If there is a legitimate point to some of the infobox fields being erroneous or misleading, try to deal with it if you revert. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 04:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks like this was just a blank infobox, so try to add some actual information this time. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 04:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Many times, (though still a tiny proportion of our million-plus infoboxes) and attempts to hold a reasoned discussion, per WP:BRD, often result in a shitstorm. For recent examples, see Talk:Little Moreton Hall, Talk:Montacute House (where in each case, infoboxes are hidden), Talk:Melville Island (Nova Scotia), Talk:Hans-Joachim Hessler and Talk:Cosima Wagner for some recent examples. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

So glad I'm not alone in my opinion. You can shout, kick and scream all you like Andy (you're recent behaviour has been appalling), but you won't succeed in forcing these horrible things on every historic building in a uniform fashion. This carting a debate that you have lost from page-to-page does you no credit at all. You are making yourself appear very puerile spoilt. Giano 13:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

QED (but thanks for the compliment). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

And now you've edited your post, after I replied to it, changing its meaning, but leaving no note to that effect; that's really disingenuous. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

My spellchecker had changed 'appalling' to 'appealing'; are you seriously such a ridiculous little man that you though that I would find anything about you appealing? It defies belief. Giano 20:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with most of the things written in this essay. For instance:

"If the infobox contains subjective categories, it is a disinfobox." NO. This means the infobox's content should change.
"If the infobox is longer than a third of the article's body, it is a disinfobox." NO. This means the page needs expansion.
"If a biographical infobox contains only a photo, a person's occupation, and date and place of birth/death, it is a disinfobox." No. It's better than just having a single photo.
"Disinfoboxes tend to be the product of editors [...] not interested in evaluating the merit or potential usefulness of an infobox within a particular article" This merely an opinion and judgement of motivations against WP:AGF. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a distinction to be made between the value of an infobox, and (when it is inserted into an article), the manner in which the infobox is added. In some of the examples that have already been quoted, above, the main initiator and advocate of infoboxes seemed to be rather practically acting against their addition by the manner in which that addition was done. Thus, useful support for an infobox from potential allies was diminished because of what I can only and simply describe as a hamfisted and unskilled edit that certainly was perceived by some to contravene the spirit of collaborative working.In this, perception is important, and many ignore it at their peril, because we are in a persuasion situation.

If you want to persuade people round to using infoboxes, you need to pay attention to the way in which you go and add them to articles. All successful persuasions in which you build committment rather than grudging tolerance (at best) start from a basis of those people's existing opinions that you wish to change. This can require careful thought to devise a suitable strategy, and eagerness or lack of patience can often thwart an entire enterprise by not getting a good strategy. At the moment, the addition of infoboxes has sometimes be done so that it becomes a radical and large edit to an already-established article (sometimes one that is at Featured Status, or one that is in some other prominent position within wikipedia), and it is done in a way that makes the end-result look worse than without to established editors who may have worked long and hard to add content to an article and make it look good without an infobox and have had no input to the process of adding an infobox.

I dispute Andy Mabbett's comment that on Little Moreton Hall he did an acceptable job of initiating a "reasoned discussion", because he added an infobox without any prior discussion (see WP:5P, and WP:Reckless) and he now suggests, by implication, others were responsible for a "shitstorm" that then happened: even the description of what happened is unlikely to act to persuade the editors who objected at the undiscussed addition, and the accusation of ownership that then was the response to an objection. This type of action ands up alienating people more rather than persuading them, and, like it or not, you do have to do this both in a general way (by writing well-published essays) and on a case-by-case way (for individual articles). I am not trying to be objectionable here, but I am trying to suggest, gently, that (a) one needs diplomacy to carry your work forwards at times, (b) actions like the ones I have suggested, above, do not seem to fit easily within the framework of Wikpedia principles of collaborative working, and (c) (speaking as a professional researcher in the area), they do not represent good strategic use of well-understood practices of how to be successfully persuasive. I put it down to extreme enthusiasm that leads to impatience, which can sometimes be good, but which sometimes means one acts a little sub-optimally, and leads to a breakdown of assumptions of good faith. However, that seems to have happened a number of times, and I imagine, unless changes are made, it will happen again. Instead of imposing infoboxes on articles that don't have them, and engendering grudging tolerance (and potential resentment) by so doing; it seems more in the spirit of wikipedia to try to change the strategy to build committment in others by persuading them and carrying them with you! There are other issues similar to these about strategy that can be made, but I feel I must, once again, stress that these thoughts are offered up to you all as a way of helping you achieve your ends in a better, less confrontational way, which is what I hope we all, deep down, are committed to here on wikipedia. I am not immune from making these mistakes, either (after all, I am human), but I hope what I have said here, after a period of reflection, can help us all move forward. DDStretch (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

QED. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I like infoboxes, and I have added many of them to articles, but I think the approaches to adding them, especially the ones you gave in a short list, turned into confrontational exchanges, exactly because of the problems that your short, seemingly point-scoring message, above, seems to illustrate. This makes me sad. Can any others give me more than a smart-put-down-like comment to what I have written: I wrote it as a means of building bridges and making positive suggestions for you all, because I am not against infoboxes or having them added to articles, but there are ways of doing that and there are ways of doing that! If you like, I can even cite reliable sources that back up the strategic issues I have mentioned. However, this kind of answer, above, is exactly what made a difficult insertion of an infobox to an article a source of confrontation and anger. Surely we can do better than this? DDStretch (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this [4] says all we need to know. Mabbitt was banned for a year after this Arb case. It seems nothing changes. Wikipdian in Residence indeed. I am out of this info-box war; I'll agree to the collapsed box and nothing more. Giano 20:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Re deletion of Infoboxes, I thought it might be useful to post here the discussion I just had with another editor on the topic re his deletion of the Infobox for this article [5]. NinaGreen (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Fixing misuse of infobox image parameter

Another editor deleted the image and caption from the Francis Wolley article, which had just been featured today on the DYK page with an edit summary stating that she was 'fixing misuse of infobox image parameter'. For the diff, see: [6]. I have no idea what 'fixing misuseof infobox image parameter' means, and suspect it is merely that this editor is of the view that the only acceptable image for an infobox is a picture of the person. There are many historical personages for whom no photograph, portrait, engraving or other likeness exists, Francis Wolley being one of them. It seems to me not unreasonable that a related image having some direct relationship to the person in question should be acceptable in an infobox. Is there some way of getting that statement written into the Wikipedia Manual of Style, or at the very least, into the statement on the WikiProject Infoboxes page? Any help with this, or comments, would be appreciated. NinaGreen (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion re service numbers in militaryperson infoboxes

A discussion regarding service numbers in military person infoboxes is taking place here: Template_talk:Infobox_military_person#Service_number_parameter. Interested editors are invited to participate. – S. Rich (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Image params

Some infoboxes require that just the image name is passed as a parameter and others require the full image link. For example: |image = [[Image:Abbey Rd Studios.jpg|200px]] or |image = Abbey Rd Studios.jpg

I've been working on a module that will allow both methods to be used against an infobox. The code is at Module:InfoboxImage and some examples are at Module talk:InfoboxImage.

I've also made the change in Template:Infobox person/sandbox as an example to show how it works.

Have a play and see what you think and we could maybe roll it out to various infoboxes later on. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to find all infoboxes that still don't support bare filenames and convert them (or ask for help to do it). -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Redesigning infoboxes?

The infoboxes look so dull and old... How about a revamping project? The French have excellent new infoboxes that we have also implemented in the Hungarian Wikipedia. You can check at hu:WP:INFOBOX and fr:Projet:Infobox/V2. Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 11:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hidden infoboxes

Are collapsed/ hidden infoboxes acceptable? Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Hidden infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Infobox writer, occupation parameter

Is it appropriate to use an unbulleted list in the Occupation parameter? What is the reason for specifying "please don't separate entries using line breaks <br>" in the Occupation parameter? How many occupations would you expect Roger Ebert's article to display in the infobox? Thanks, in advance, for your help. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 02:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox colours

Can someone tell me how to make the infobox for Sporting Life 10K a different colour? I can't see the motto under the logo very well. nerd fighter 19:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

your best option is to use a different image, or modify it so it doesn't use a transparent background. Frietjes (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

DONE. It's not the infobox, that problem was your logo. I have uploaded a new version. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)