Much better. It's less opinionated, better written, deals more with the appropriate use of optional fields, and it comes off less authoritative then WP:ACT. However, I do think a warning should be added cautioning template editors not to get carried away with optional fields — as Netoholic has complained in the previously mentioned proposal. After all, it is not appropriate to make every field optional.-- TheFarix 02:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason why the mdashes in the General advice section, or anywhere else in the proposal, shouldn't be unicoded? -- TheFarix ( Talk) 03:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Am I right in thinking the goal for this should be a style guideline? — Locke Cole • t • c 04:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
It seems that most of the guidance here focuses on infobox creation, rather than usage. For example, many (but not all) pages that have a single most-appropriate infobox place the infobox in the introductory section. This seems most logical, but the only recommendation I've found on the topic is in Wikipedia:Chemical infobox (which does instruct editors to put the infobox in the introduction). Would there be any opposition to recommending infobox placement in the introductory section as a usage guideline on this page? Tlesher 01:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi contributors. Is there any reason that this page contains no advice about where infoboxes should be located, when they should and shouldn't be used, and guidelines for the use of images within infoboxes? Tony (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
This page Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes) deals with how to use infoboxes, and so does Wikipedia:Infobox templates. Would it be appropriate to look closely at them and merge the information? SilkTork * SilkyTalk 13:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
SilkTork * SilkyTalk 11:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The width of an infobox should be specified in em's not px, as this is relative to font-size. ed g2s • talk 11:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
The backlinks now show all the pages with the infobox.
However, the maximum number shown is 999; therefore, for infoboxes used on more than 999 pages an automatically generated list that is complete is not available, unless there is a category. Alternatively there might be a non-automatic list.
Infoboxes used on more than 999 pages include:
As a workaround, the set of pages with an infobox can be divided in subsets of not more than 999, each calling a redirect to the infobox; the backlinks of the redirects are together the pages that use the infobox; one has to record the names of the redirects, because they are also part of the large set of backlinks of the infobox, of which only 500 are shown.
Redirects allowing 999 backlinks each:
Alternatively, CVG could redirect to CVG1, and the content put there, then on 999 pages less the template tag would have to be changed (from CVG to CVG2, etc.).
The same can be done for infoboxes when the number of pages reaches 999, then the backlinks are and stay complete without cumbersome changes in tags.
For example, for Template:Infobox City ( talk links ), when there are almost 999 cities, the template can be renamed, so that the existing tags refer to a redirect. A second redirect to the new name can be used for new occurrences of the infobox.
Patrick 08:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I changed 500 to 999, and Template:Tic, after reading the message below.-- Patrick 10:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There is a new proposal concerning infoboxes: Wikipedia:No infobox standardization. You are invited to comment.-- Fenice 18:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
The Human Development Index ( HDI) is a standard UN measure/ rank of how developed a country is or is not. It is a composite index based on GDP per capita (PPP), literacy, life expectancy, and school enrollment. However, as it is a composite index/rank, some may challenge its usefulness or applicability as information.
Thus, the following question is put to a vote:
Should any, some, or all of the following be included in the Wikipedia Infobox#Countries|country infobox/template:
YES / NO / UNDECIDED/ABSTAIN - vote here
Thanks!
E Pluribus Anthony 01:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Should we use Template:Infobox Country on Austria or on Template:Infobox Austria. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Country_Specific_Infoxboxes_that_only_redirect_to_Template:Infobox_Country. -- User:Docu
{{
lists of films}}
Hi!
I couldn't find this template here. I would like to know if anyone knows how to add one more genre in this template. It's missing
drama films...
fizzerbear 23:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Editors of Saint Louis, Missouri would like to use Template:Quotebox to place directly under Template:Infobox City, and I've tried several ways to accomplish this, to no avail. How is it done (if it is possible)? Alternatively, it could be placed inside city infobox, but I'm not sure that is possible or desirable, or how to do it, if it is. Evolauxia 09:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Is there a standard form of usage instructions for infoboxes? Also, is there a stardard that says the instructions should be placed on the talk page. The reason I'm asking is because I think that the best place to put instructions would be on the infobox's main page (inside a pair of noinclude tags, of course). This way when a user goes to the infobox page they don't just see a mess of code or a box with a bunch of inclusion tags in it. A novice may not even realize the instuctions are on the talk page until they go there to ask how to use it. - Trevor MacInnis ( Talk | Contribs) 23:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I've created page for discussion about creating a standard look and feel for geographical infoboxes, please contribute at Wikipedia:Geographical infoboxes if you're interested. -- Rick Block ( talk) 17:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on at Template talk:Infobox President about moving Template:Infobox President to Template:Infobox Officeholder. Hera1187 09:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
As everyone knows, each section in a wikipedia article has an Edit link which gives a user the opportunity to edit only that section. Is there a way to include an edit link in an infobox which would give the user the opportunity to edit the template call as a section? (I.e., not a link to edit the template itself, but to the infobox within the current article.) I hope this is clear. The Infobox I'm talking about is Template:Infobox baseball team. Thanks in advance. Rolando ( talk) 15:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello - I was wondering if I could get some technical help regarding the interactions of two info boxes. I have been developing the template:mycomorphbox infobox as a way to quickly display identifying characteristics of mushrooms on mushroom pages. These pages tend to also have template:taxobox infoboxes. When the two appear together, the "edit" links in each sub-section of the articles get pushed down to the top of the lower infobox, generally the mycomorphbox. I would like to resolve this. Oyster mushroom is an example.
I believe it has something to do with the "edit" links being positioned using "float:right" as when I make test text with <div style="float:right"> I get the same positioning effect.
Thanks for any tips ! Debivort 08:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The infobox is very good template to use in any wikki for right side navigation , or content related navigation , but there is a common problem in implentation of infobox template that many time the box doesent appear. I am implementing a wiki [1] here We are implementing the infobox template IPR look through it at [2] the same like a template Intellectual_Property in wiki but no box is appearing. What to do is any one can suggest any solution . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Siddhast ( talk • contribs).
Isn't it time we had a specific film director box? Editors have often used the Actor format ( Scorsese, Hitchcock are examples) but it isn't ideal. El Ingles 22:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a conflict of guidelines. The InfoBox guideline says to insert the InfoBox in the top right of an article, yet the MoS guideline says that an image should be placed in the top right of an article unless there is a compelling reason not to. There is a discussion about this on the MoS [3]. The MoS guidelines predate the InfoBox guidelines and are overarching. The specific guideline to use a picture or image in the top right predates the InfoBox guidelines. Therefore the InfoBox guideline is inappropriate and in conflict with an existing consensual guideline. I have made the adjustment. Any queries please raise them on the MoS talkpage. SilkTork 17:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
So I attempted to "correct" an editor who was adding infoboxes after the lead paragraph in multiple biography articles, and was surprised to discover that this is actually per the MOS guideline in this article (Insert in the main body of articles - either after the intro or in the most appropriate section. Consider putting in the top right only in the most compelling of cases.) As I feel like I've never really seen an article whose infobox isn't right up top, I started choosing featured articles at random, and every one with an infobox that I viewed in fact "violates" these guidelines as far as placement goes. Is this guideline outdated, or just under-advertised and not considered important for article assessment? It seems like a relatively minor aesthetic issue, but if it is so rampantly ignored and unpoliced, I'm wondering who determined this guideline in the first place and why. — TAnthony Talk 20:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Much better. It's less opinionated, better written, deals more with the appropriate use of optional fields, and it comes off less authoritative then WP:ACT. However, I do think a warning should be added cautioning template editors not to get carried away with optional fields — as Netoholic has complained in the previously mentioned proposal. After all, it is not appropriate to make every field optional.-- TheFarix 02:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason why the mdashes in the General advice section, or anywhere else in the proposal, shouldn't be unicoded? -- TheFarix ( Talk) 03:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Am I right in thinking the goal for this should be a style guideline? — Locke Cole • t • c 04:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
It seems that most of the guidance here focuses on infobox creation, rather than usage. For example, many (but not all) pages that have a single most-appropriate infobox place the infobox in the introductory section. This seems most logical, but the only recommendation I've found on the topic is in Wikipedia:Chemical infobox (which does instruct editors to put the infobox in the introduction). Would there be any opposition to recommending infobox placement in the introductory section as a usage guideline on this page? Tlesher 01:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi contributors. Is there any reason that this page contains no advice about where infoboxes should be located, when they should and shouldn't be used, and guidelines for the use of images within infoboxes? Tony (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
This page Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes) deals with how to use infoboxes, and so does Wikipedia:Infobox templates. Would it be appropriate to look closely at them and merge the information? SilkTork * SilkyTalk 13:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
SilkTork * SilkyTalk 11:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The width of an infobox should be specified in em's not px, as this is relative to font-size. ed g2s • talk 11:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
The backlinks now show all the pages with the infobox.
However, the maximum number shown is 999; therefore, for infoboxes used on more than 999 pages an automatically generated list that is complete is not available, unless there is a category. Alternatively there might be a non-automatic list.
Infoboxes used on more than 999 pages include:
As a workaround, the set of pages with an infobox can be divided in subsets of not more than 999, each calling a redirect to the infobox; the backlinks of the redirects are together the pages that use the infobox; one has to record the names of the redirects, because they are also part of the large set of backlinks of the infobox, of which only 500 are shown.
Redirects allowing 999 backlinks each:
Alternatively, CVG could redirect to CVG1, and the content put there, then on 999 pages less the template tag would have to be changed (from CVG to CVG2, etc.).
The same can be done for infoboxes when the number of pages reaches 999, then the backlinks are and stay complete without cumbersome changes in tags.
For example, for Template:Infobox City ( talk links ), when there are almost 999 cities, the template can be renamed, so that the existing tags refer to a redirect. A second redirect to the new name can be used for new occurrences of the infobox.
Patrick 08:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I changed 500 to 999, and Template:Tic, after reading the message below.-- Patrick 10:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There is a new proposal concerning infoboxes: Wikipedia:No infobox standardization. You are invited to comment.-- Fenice 18:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
The Human Development Index ( HDI) is a standard UN measure/ rank of how developed a country is or is not. It is a composite index based on GDP per capita (PPP), literacy, life expectancy, and school enrollment. However, as it is a composite index/rank, some may challenge its usefulness or applicability as information.
Thus, the following question is put to a vote:
Should any, some, or all of the following be included in the Wikipedia Infobox#Countries|country infobox/template:
YES / NO / UNDECIDED/ABSTAIN - vote here
Thanks!
E Pluribus Anthony 01:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Should we use Template:Infobox Country on Austria or on Template:Infobox Austria. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Country_Specific_Infoxboxes_that_only_redirect_to_Template:Infobox_Country. -- User:Docu
{{
lists of films}}
Hi!
I couldn't find this template here. I would like to know if anyone knows how to add one more genre in this template. It's missing
drama films...
fizzerbear 23:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Editors of Saint Louis, Missouri would like to use Template:Quotebox to place directly under Template:Infobox City, and I've tried several ways to accomplish this, to no avail. How is it done (if it is possible)? Alternatively, it could be placed inside city infobox, but I'm not sure that is possible or desirable, or how to do it, if it is. Evolauxia 09:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Is there a standard form of usage instructions for infoboxes? Also, is there a stardard that says the instructions should be placed on the talk page. The reason I'm asking is because I think that the best place to put instructions would be on the infobox's main page (inside a pair of noinclude tags, of course). This way when a user goes to the infobox page they don't just see a mess of code or a box with a bunch of inclusion tags in it. A novice may not even realize the instuctions are on the talk page until they go there to ask how to use it. - Trevor MacInnis ( Talk | Contribs) 23:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I've created page for discussion about creating a standard look and feel for geographical infoboxes, please contribute at Wikipedia:Geographical infoboxes if you're interested. -- Rick Block ( talk) 17:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on at Template talk:Infobox President about moving Template:Infobox President to Template:Infobox Officeholder. Hera1187 09:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
As everyone knows, each section in a wikipedia article has an Edit link which gives a user the opportunity to edit only that section. Is there a way to include an edit link in an infobox which would give the user the opportunity to edit the template call as a section? (I.e., not a link to edit the template itself, but to the infobox within the current article.) I hope this is clear. The Infobox I'm talking about is Template:Infobox baseball team. Thanks in advance. Rolando ( talk) 15:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello - I was wondering if I could get some technical help regarding the interactions of two info boxes. I have been developing the template:mycomorphbox infobox as a way to quickly display identifying characteristics of mushrooms on mushroom pages. These pages tend to also have template:taxobox infoboxes. When the two appear together, the "edit" links in each sub-section of the articles get pushed down to the top of the lower infobox, generally the mycomorphbox. I would like to resolve this. Oyster mushroom is an example.
I believe it has something to do with the "edit" links being positioned using "float:right" as when I make test text with <div style="float:right"> I get the same positioning effect.
Thanks for any tips ! Debivort 08:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The infobox is very good template to use in any wikki for right side navigation , or content related navigation , but there is a common problem in implentation of infobox template that many time the box doesent appear. I am implementing a wiki [1] here We are implementing the infobox template IPR look through it at [2] the same like a template Intellectual_Property in wiki but no box is appearing. What to do is any one can suggest any solution . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Siddhast ( talk • contribs).
Isn't it time we had a specific film director box? Editors have often used the Actor format ( Scorsese, Hitchcock are examples) but it isn't ideal. El Ingles 22:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a conflict of guidelines. The InfoBox guideline says to insert the InfoBox in the top right of an article, yet the MoS guideline says that an image should be placed in the top right of an article unless there is a compelling reason not to. There is a discussion about this on the MoS [3]. The MoS guidelines predate the InfoBox guidelines and are overarching. The specific guideline to use a picture or image in the top right predates the InfoBox guidelines. Therefore the InfoBox guideline is inappropriate and in conflict with an existing consensual guideline. I have made the adjustment. Any queries please raise them on the MoS talkpage. SilkTork 17:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
So I attempted to "correct" an editor who was adding infoboxes after the lead paragraph in multiple biography articles, and was surprised to discover that this is actually per the MOS guideline in this article (Insert in the main body of articles - either after the intro or in the most appropriate section. Consider putting in the top right only in the most compelling of cases.) As I feel like I've never really seen an article whose infobox isn't right up top, I started choosing featured articles at random, and every one with an infobox that I viewed in fact "violates" these guidelines as far as placement goes. Is this guideline outdated, or just under-advertised and not considered important for article assessment? It seems like a relatively minor aesthetic issue, but if it is so rampantly ignored and unpoliced, I'm wondering who determined this guideline in the first place and why. — TAnthony Talk 20:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)