![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
There is a discussion going on about whether the information within infoboxes has to be repeated in the text, or "body", if you will, of an article, specifically whether the locations of birth and death (which many editors wrongly put in the parentheses with the dates) have to appear elsewhere than inside an infobox when they're moved from inside the dates-of-birth-and-death parentheses. Whew! It seems to me that MoS Infoboxes is the best place to clarify this point. I propose a change to this project page saying something like, "The information within an infobox should also appear outside the infobox in the body of the article." -- Milkbreath ( talk) 10:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Right. I thought of that, and they are common-sense exceptions. The problem is that people are saying that because certain information is in the infobox it doesn't need to be in the article, specifically in this case locations of birth and death in biographical articles. The objection you raise would also apply to, say, articles about elements, where we wouldn't expect every teensy detail to be laid out elsewhere. I would like, nevertheless, for the default position on infoboxes to be that they are intended to be a handy summarization and not the article itself. You can see that some short articles could well be covered entirely in an infobox, which I don't think is desirable. I'm wide open for suggestions as to wording, and I hope everyone reading this will follow the link in the section heading and chime in. -- Milkbreath ( talk) 18:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
The notable ideas fields of Daniel Dennett, Antonio Negri and Aristotle's infoboxes all contain several entries but each uses a different format to separate the items (br tags, dots or commas). Is there a single correct format to use? I had problems reading Negri's infobox via dbpedia so I assume dots are incorrect. Whitespace ( talk) 11:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
The current section on the matter says "Rather than having each field correspond to a parameter on one template, the infobox consists of an individual sub-template for each field..." and gives the example of {{ Taxobox}}. However, there's at least one infobox, {{ Infobox animanga}}, which uses subtemplates for whole groups of fields, with each subtemplate corresponding to a different possible media type/release (e.g. manga, anime, films, etc.) - perhaps the best analogy here would be nested infoboxes. I'm not sure of whether this should be mentioned, though, or the best way to mention it as such. Thoughts? 「 ダイノガイ 千?!」 ? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest a standard infobox feature. Since some articles require a set of infoboxes rather than just one, we should have a standard way to include them so we can improve the look, rather than make them look clunky and mis-matched like they generally do now. The {{ infobox nrhp}} has a way to do this, but it's non-standard. Is there someone here who understand how infoboxes work well enough to do this? Is it something the community can agree with? - Denimadept ( talk) 19:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
(out) so make"infobox NRHP", building, bridge, etc all be wrappers where they invoke the top, the new module, and the bottom, and the new module ("infobox NRHP/mod", building/mod, bridge/mod, etc) is where all the meat is, but doesn't have a top or bottom so it's includable/stackable, then? Is that the way? ++ Lar: t/ c 18:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
As a person who's frequently involved in categorizing and recategorizing new and newish articles, I just wanted to mention that in recent weeks I've noticed a serious increase in the number of articles formatted under the mistaken assumption that the infobox is supposed to begin after the introductory paragraph of the article. Does anybody know where this is coming from and/or what to do about it? Bearcat ( talk) 02:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I am new to Wikipedia and don't know if this is the right place to post this but i am interested in getting a new infobox made. I work in and am mostly interested in Architecture and one of the big things right now is in Green building design. Here in the US we have a program called LEED which is a system for rating and validating buildings that are built to green standards. I don't know how to make a infobox but im sure it has to do with HTML code or something along those lines. If someone who knows how to make one can get a new box made with the following fields listed below it would be greatly appreciated.
Template:Infobox Green building
{{Infobox Green building | name = | image = | image_width = | caption = | address = | location = | coordinates = | use = | opening = | owner = | developer = | property_manager = | architect = | contractor = | construction_budget = | style = | floor_area = | floor_count = | LEED_Certification = | website = | footnotes = ))
Category:Buildings and structures infobox templates Thanks - Cygnusloop99 ( talk) 20:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
{{infobox building}}
can be adapted to fit your needs. Let me know and I am happy to help.
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk)
00:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Many infoboxes contain a field for displaying the URL of the official webpage of the subject of the article (e.g. {{ Infobox company}}, {{ Infobox rail company}}, {{ Infobox TV channel}} to name but a few). Does anybody know if there is a MOS guideline which states whether the URL is supposed to be piped or not? I can't find one.
Current practice seems to suggest that the purpose of such a field is to tell the reader what the URL is: certainly, this is what is done in the sample usages of {{ Infobox company}} and {{ Infobox TV channel}}. However, a particular user is insistent the style indicated in WP:EL of hiding the URLs of all external links applies regardless (and objects to me trying to apply WP:COMMONSENSE, but anyway....). It seems to me that, in this situation, piping the text, say (in the TVOntario article), "TVO" over the top of " http://www.tvo.org/", for instance, is detrimental to our readers: knowing what the official URL is is useful information, and takes up the same amount of space.
A policy or guideline on this may be needed! -- RFBailey ( talk) 20:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
The Twilight Saga: New Moon Directed by Chris Weitz Written by Novel
Stephenie Meyer
Screenplay
Melissa RosenbergProduced by Mark Morgan
Wyck GodfreyStarring Kristen Stewart
Taylor Lautner
Robert PattinsonCinematography Javier Aguirresarobe Edited by Peter Lambert Music by Alexandre Desplat Distributed by Summit Entertainment Release datesNovember 16, 2009
( Los Angeles)
November 20, 2009 Running time130 minutes [1] Country United States Language English Budget $50 million [1] Box office $662,477,961 [1]
Would it be okay to bold Screenwritter and Novel like that? Many other movie articles do bold something similar to that in the infobox. ChaosMaster16 ( talk) 15:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
Editors at this page may (or may not) wish to have a look at WT:WikiProject_Composers#Biographical_infoboxes.2F10th_discussion, in which some editors say that infoboxes can be deleted on sight (for articles within the project's scope), and others say that they should never be deleted because other projects like them, or something like that. Someone asserts that this is the tenth go-round for this particular issue at this particular debate in this particular group.
The current "discussion" is currently 50 kb, and I'm sure that comments by some WP:CIVIL editors would be sincerely appreciated. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 07:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
A very fair statement of the situation has just been put together at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers#A new perspective, in the hope of wider discussion. I'd encourage (beg even) as many people as possible to give it an open-minded review and post constructive comments there. This is an ongoing issue that needs to be properly resolved, through a widely-participated review. Please come and give your thoughts on the statement linked. Happy‑ melon 16:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
The section:
The top text line should be bold and contain the full (official) name of the article's subject; for people common name is optional. This does not need to match the article's Wikipedia title. It should not contain a link. Avoid {{PAGENAME}} as pages may be moved for disambiguation.
does not reflect current consensus around adding the hCard microformat to biographical infoboxes; nor does it reflect current best and common practise. I suggest rewording and reordering to something like:
The top text line should be bold and contain the full (official) name of the article's subject. This does not need to match the article's Wikipedia title. It should not contain a link. For people, their common name is needed to allow the use of an hCard microformat. Take care when using {{PAGENAME}} as pages may be named for disambiguation.
Thoughts? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't recall a consensus that all infoboxes had to use hCard microformat. Quite the opposite actually that it was done on case by case basis with the editors of those subjects being involved. - DJSasso ( talk) 03:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
What does the hCard require for a name to function properly? I support the use of hCards, but I don't like the wording of the proposed hCard sentence.-- SaskatchewanSenator ( talk) 08:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
<span class="fn">SaskatchewanSenator</span>
.
Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing);
Andy's talk;
Andy's edits
22:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Djsasso has, twice in 24 hours, reverted this change on the project page ( [2], [3]); I believe that he had no consensus to do so. I also believe has done so because of a disagreement over what should happen on {{ Infobox Ice Hockey Player }}, regardless of the fact that the style of that infobox is at odds with virtually every other one on Wikipedia; a large number of which currently use {{PAGENAME}} in the manner described. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Andy pinged me and asked for my opinion here, so I'm responding. I would agree that at this point the use of the common name as the infobox title is commonplace, and that a {{PAGENAME}} fallback is almost universal. I'm somewhat less clear on why the fn attribute has to be tied to the infobox title. I would also note that the use of the common name is in fact so commonplace that the proposed rewording (which still prescribes the use of the official name) would still be out of sync with current practice. This would be a good time to give editing the policy a rest and try a few rewordings to see what best reflects current and ideal practice. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
←What about:
The top text line should be emboldened and contain the name of the article's subject. This may be formal or informal, and does not need to match the article's Wikipedia title. It may default to {{PAGENAME}}, but take care when using this, as some pages are named for disambiguation. It should not contain a link.
Where the infobox emits a microformat, the name will probably be used as the "formatted name" (fn) (or as the "summary" in hCalendar).
Perhaps also with a line about not using images of text. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
←Any further comment? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits
Despite there being no further comments, in the last seven months, Djsasso has just reverted this change. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Are there any guidelines regarding the use of alternate languages in title fields? It seem to be a growing trend to add other languages into the infobox title field, which can be problematic when dealing with subjects from countries with multiple languages, such as India. Also, the title section can get quite long, necessitating hide toggles, such as at United Nations. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 21:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Why are infoboxes now displayed at the left / top of the article instead of on the right with text to the left of the infobox? Adam sk ( talk) 16:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
There is an RfC at Template_talk:Infobox_ice_hockey_player#rfctag which could do with wider community input. -- JD554 ( talk) 14:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB ( talk) 20:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
The MOS currently says that The top text line should be bold and contain the full (official) name of the article's subject; for people common name is optional. At Template talk:Infobox ice hockey player#Revisiting_the_name_issue, there's a debate about whether this guideline is a good one. The hockey infobox doesn't have the name in the header. People who like this design say that having the name in the article title, the first sentence of the article, the photo caption, and in the infobox header is redundant. Those who would prefer the name be in the header say that it's better to follow the MOS, and that the hCard microformat is lost as a result of not having the name there. As the hockey infobox is the only infobox that currently doesn't include a name in the header, and as the issue continues to be contentious at the talk page, I'm wondering if you can settle a few issues:
-- Rsl12 ( talk) 15:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The purpose of posting at this page was not so the old brawlers could enjoy a change of scenery. I'm hoping placing the question here will attract the correct new audience. I've linked to the old discussion in my original post, for those interested. -- Rsl12 ( talk) 15:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Names are necessary at the top for consistency and to make sure the name of the whatever-it-is is clear. - Denimadept ( talk) 18:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
One thing I've not seen yet in this debate is a discussion about WP:Accessibility. What does a screen reader do when it encounters the infobox? Does the rendering sound logical (with or without names)? Or is the repetition of name obvious and silly? I admit I do not have the tools to test this myself. — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 23:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Andrwsc's point about accessibility sounds like a good one. I've invited the folks there to provide feedback. Also, I decided to look around at other web pages to see how they mix together factboxes with articles.
I kind of like the approach of titling infoboxes something like "At a Glance" or "Facts and Figures". If anyone wants to do more research, feel free to add to my list. -- Rsl12 ( talk) 22:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Acting Profile of Arnold Schwarzenegger |
---|
Born: January 19xx, etc. |
Why? Semantics. Accessibility. Infoboxes are data tables and as such should have either: a) a proper caption ("+"), or b) a header-cell that spans all the columns (typically 2 of them). Endorse the comments of Andy, Chris, and Graham; this is modern web-standards goodness. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 14:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Possibly something that needs to be discussed (or a clearer answer pointed to in the guideline), is which "full (official) name" to use. Are we meant to include titles? Middle names? Match the lead sentence's bold name? Match the current pagename (minus any disambig)?
Some of these examples have different wording in all 3 (page title, first bold name, infobox header).
(Please feel free to move this subthread to another talkpage, if that helps). Thanks. -- Quiddity ( talk) 20:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for the input. It seems there is a clear consensus for titles to be obligatory for infoboxes (though if anyone disagrees, please correct me now). I think there's still some discussion to be had over what exactly the title should contain, though the majority seem to be leaning towards leaving the titles as they are. The original purpose for bringing up discussion here, however, was to determine what to do about the hockey infoboxes, and in that sense, I think we've done enough. If anyone wants to stick around and hash out some possibilities of alternate titles ("Football Career At-a-glance", "Football Profile of xxx", full or common name), I'll stick around as well. If no-one has the energy for it, I will let the issue drop. -- Rsl12 ( talk) 17:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
At Template talk:Infobox ice hockey player#Moving on, some editors are disputing the consensus reached here. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Please come comment at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Maps_in_infoboxes.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 07:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
There's a debate about styling issues and the use of {{ Infobox}} at Template talk:Infobox ice hockey player#Further cleanup work which may be of interest. Contributions welcome. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I think there is a bug in this box for "location" and "place of birth". Try one in your sandbox and see if you get same result. It might not be exactly those two entries, because I can't exactly remember, so fill one out completely. Maybe I misused a (|). I did it twice and got the same type of mess up. Relatively new here, so I don't know how to fix the underlying template code. Bridgettttttte babble poop 11:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Input is requested at Template talk:Infobox weather#Green precipitation and rain. Thanks. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 05:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I propose that we add a paragraph to this MoS page, stipulating that the subject's URL, if included, be shown as, say:
[http://example.com example.com]
(rendering as
example.com)and not:
[http://example.com Official website]
(rendering as
Official website)This will achieve three things:
I will post pointers to this discussion on other project/ talk pages. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
<span class="nourlexpansion">
around it. --
The Evil IP address (
talk)
19:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Update: I've created {{ Urlw}}, based on the long-standing, but little-used, {{ Url}}, to implement the above proposal. If agreed, the logic could be adapted and included directly in infoboxes. See also {{ Url}}'s talk page for my proposal to merge the two. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Can we wrap this up, now? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
[moved this to another page] -- Noleander ( talk) 00:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
FYI there's an RfC currently happening here that may be of interest. OrangeDog ( τ • ε) 20:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
At this point, the prevalence of {{ infobox}} and templates styled like it means that the recommendation of a 25em / 300px width is followed by approximately no deployed templates. As the MoS is meant to reflect best practice, and the convention has long since moved on, this should be updated to 22em. I'll deploy this in a few days unless there's some serious reason to reconsider. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Measurement in "em" is unclear. Measurement in pixels is clear. - Denimadept ( talk) 16:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Standardization = step forward. Pichpich ( talk) 22:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
What are the benefits to the end reader of changing the advice? LunarLander // talk // 01:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
There is a discussion going on about whether the information within infoboxes has to be repeated in the text, or "body", if you will, of an article, specifically whether the locations of birth and death (which many editors wrongly put in the parentheses with the dates) have to appear elsewhere than inside an infobox when they're moved from inside the dates-of-birth-and-death parentheses. Whew! It seems to me that MoS Infoboxes is the best place to clarify this point. I propose a change to this project page saying something like, "The information within an infobox should also appear outside the infobox in the body of the article." -- Milkbreath ( talk) 10:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Right. I thought of that, and they are common-sense exceptions. The problem is that people are saying that because certain information is in the infobox it doesn't need to be in the article, specifically in this case locations of birth and death in biographical articles. The objection you raise would also apply to, say, articles about elements, where we wouldn't expect every teensy detail to be laid out elsewhere. I would like, nevertheless, for the default position on infoboxes to be that they are intended to be a handy summarization and not the article itself. You can see that some short articles could well be covered entirely in an infobox, which I don't think is desirable. I'm wide open for suggestions as to wording, and I hope everyone reading this will follow the link in the section heading and chime in. -- Milkbreath ( talk) 18:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
The notable ideas fields of Daniel Dennett, Antonio Negri and Aristotle's infoboxes all contain several entries but each uses a different format to separate the items (br tags, dots or commas). Is there a single correct format to use? I had problems reading Negri's infobox via dbpedia so I assume dots are incorrect. Whitespace ( talk) 11:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
The current section on the matter says "Rather than having each field correspond to a parameter on one template, the infobox consists of an individual sub-template for each field..." and gives the example of {{ Taxobox}}. However, there's at least one infobox, {{ Infobox animanga}}, which uses subtemplates for whole groups of fields, with each subtemplate corresponding to a different possible media type/release (e.g. manga, anime, films, etc.) - perhaps the best analogy here would be nested infoboxes. I'm not sure of whether this should be mentioned, though, or the best way to mention it as such. Thoughts? 「 ダイノガイ 千?!」 ? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest a standard infobox feature. Since some articles require a set of infoboxes rather than just one, we should have a standard way to include them so we can improve the look, rather than make them look clunky and mis-matched like they generally do now. The {{ infobox nrhp}} has a way to do this, but it's non-standard. Is there someone here who understand how infoboxes work well enough to do this? Is it something the community can agree with? - Denimadept ( talk) 19:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
(out) so make"infobox NRHP", building, bridge, etc all be wrappers where they invoke the top, the new module, and the bottom, and the new module ("infobox NRHP/mod", building/mod, bridge/mod, etc) is where all the meat is, but doesn't have a top or bottom so it's includable/stackable, then? Is that the way? ++ Lar: t/ c 18:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
As a person who's frequently involved in categorizing and recategorizing new and newish articles, I just wanted to mention that in recent weeks I've noticed a serious increase in the number of articles formatted under the mistaken assumption that the infobox is supposed to begin after the introductory paragraph of the article. Does anybody know where this is coming from and/or what to do about it? Bearcat ( talk) 02:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I am new to Wikipedia and don't know if this is the right place to post this but i am interested in getting a new infobox made. I work in and am mostly interested in Architecture and one of the big things right now is in Green building design. Here in the US we have a program called LEED which is a system for rating and validating buildings that are built to green standards. I don't know how to make a infobox but im sure it has to do with HTML code or something along those lines. If someone who knows how to make one can get a new box made with the following fields listed below it would be greatly appreciated.
Template:Infobox Green building
{{Infobox Green building | name = | image = | image_width = | caption = | address = | location = | coordinates = | use = | opening = | owner = | developer = | property_manager = | architect = | contractor = | construction_budget = | style = | floor_area = | floor_count = | LEED_Certification = | website = | footnotes = ))
Category:Buildings and structures infobox templates Thanks - Cygnusloop99 ( talk) 20:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
{{infobox building}}
can be adapted to fit your needs. Let me know and I am happy to help.
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk)
00:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Many infoboxes contain a field for displaying the URL of the official webpage of the subject of the article (e.g. {{ Infobox company}}, {{ Infobox rail company}}, {{ Infobox TV channel}} to name but a few). Does anybody know if there is a MOS guideline which states whether the URL is supposed to be piped or not? I can't find one.
Current practice seems to suggest that the purpose of such a field is to tell the reader what the URL is: certainly, this is what is done in the sample usages of {{ Infobox company}} and {{ Infobox TV channel}}. However, a particular user is insistent the style indicated in WP:EL of hiding the URLs of all external links applies regardless (and objects to me trying to apply WP:COMMONSENSE, but anyway....). It seems to me that, in this situation, piping the text, say (in the TVOntario article), "TVO" over the top of " http://www.tvo.org/", for instance, is detrimental to our readers: knowing what the official URL is is useful information, and takes up the same amount of space.
A policy or guideline on this may be needed! -- RFBailey ( talk) 20:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
The Twilight Saga: New Moon Directed by Chris Weitz Written by Novel
Stephenie Meyer
Screenplay
Melissa RosenbergProduced by Mark Morgan
Wyck GodfreyStarring Kristen Stewart
Taylor Lautner
Robert PattinsonCinematography Javier Aguirresarobe Edited by Peter Lambert Music by Alexandre Desplat Distributed by Summit Entertainment Release datesNovember 16, 2009
( Los Angeles)
November 20, 2009 Running time130 minutes [1] Country United States Language English Budget $50 million [1] Box office $662,477,961 [1]
Would it be okay to bold Screenwritter and Novel like that? Many other movie articles do bold something similar to that in the infobox. ChaosMaster16 ( talk) 15:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
Editors at this page may (or may not) wish to have a look at WT:WikiProject_Composers#Biographical_infoboxes.2F10th_discussion, in which some editors say that infoboxes can be deleted on sight (for articles within the project's scope), and others say that they should never be deleted because other projects like them, or something like that. Someone asserts that this is the tenth go-round for this particular issue at this particular debate in this particular group.
The current "discussion" is currently 50 kb, and I'm sure that comments by some WP:CIVIL editors would be sincerely appreciated. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 07:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
A very fair statement of the situation has just been put together at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers#A new perspective, in the hope of wider discussion. I'd encourage (beg even) as many people as possible to give it an open-minded review and post constructive comments there. This is an ongoing issue that needs to be properly resolved, through a widely-participated review. Please come and give your thoughts on the statement linked. Happy‑ melon 16:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
The section:
The top text line should be bold and contain the full (official) name of the article's subject; for people common name is optional. This does not need to match the article's Wikipedia title. It should not contain a link. Avoid {{PAGENAME}} as pages may be moved for disambiguation.
does not reflect current consensus around adding the hCard microformat to biographical infoboxes; nor does it reflect current best and common practise. I suggest rewording and reordering to something like:
The top text line should be bold and contain the full (official) name of the article's subject. This does not need to match the article's Wikipedia title. It should not contain a link. For people, their common name is needed to allow the use of an hCard microformat. Take care when using {{PAGENAME}} as pages may be named for disambiguation.
Thoughts? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't recall a consensus that all infoboxes had to use hCard microformat. Quite the opposite actually that it was done on case by case basis with the editors of those subjects being involved. - DJSasso ( talk) 03:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
What does the hCard require for a name to function properly? I support the use of hCards, but I don't like the wording of the proposed hCard sentence.-- SaskatchewanSenator ( talk) 08:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
<span class="fn">SaskatchewanSenator</span>
.
Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing);
Andy's talk;
Andy's edits
22:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Djsasso has, twice in 24 hours, reverted this change on the project page ( [2], [3]); I believe that he had no consensus to do so. I also believe has done so because of a disagreement over what should happen on {{ Infobox Ice Hockey Player }}, regardless of the fact that the style of that infobox is at odds with virtually every other one on Wikipedia; a large number of which currently use {{PAGENAME}} in the manner described. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Andy pinged me and asked for my opinion here, so I'm responding. I would agree that at this point the use of the common name as the infobox title is commonplace, and that a {{PAGENAME}} fallback is almost universal. I'm somewhat less clear on why the fn attribute has to be tied to the infobox title. I would also note that the use of the common name is in fact so commonplace that the proposed rewording (which still prescribes the use of the official name) would still be out of sync with current practice. This would be a good time to give editing the policy a rest and try a few rewordings to see what best reflects current and ideal practice. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
←What about:
The top text line should be emboldened and contain the name of the article's subject. This may be formal or informal, and does not need to match the article's Wikipedia title. It may default to {{PAGENAME}}, but take care when using this, as some pages are named for disambiguation. It should not contain a link.
Where the infobox emits a microformat, the name will probably be used as the "formatted name" (fn) (or as the "summary" in hCalendar).
Perhaps also with a line about not using images of text. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
←Any further comment? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits
Despite there being no further comments, in the last seven months, Djsasso has just reverted this change. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Are there any guidelines regarding the use of alternate languages in title fields? It seem to be a growing trend to add other languages into the infobox title field, which can be problematic when dealing with subjects from countries with multiple languages, such as India. Also, the title section can get quite long, necessitating hide toggles, such as at United Nations. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 21:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Why are infoboxes now displayed at the left / top of the article instead of on the right with text to the left of the infobox? Adam sk ( talk) 16:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
There is an RfC at Template_talk:Infobox_ice_hockey_player#rfctag which could do with wider community input. -- JD554 ( talk) 14:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB ( talk) 20:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
The MOS currently says that The top text line should be bold and contain the full (official) name of the article's subject; for people common name is optional. At Template talk:Infobox ice hockey player#Revisiting_the_name_issue, there's a debate about whether this guideline is a good one. The hockey infobox doesn't have the name in the header. People who like this design say that having the name in the article title, the first sentence of the article, the photo caption, and in the infobox header is redundant. Those who would prefer the name be in the header say that it's better to follow the MOS, and that the hCard microformat is lost as a result of not having the name there. As the hockey infobox is the only infobox that currently doesn't include a name in the header, and as the issue continues to be contentious at the talk page, I'm wondering if you can settle a few issues:
-- Rsl12 ( talk) 15:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The purpose of posting at this page was not so the old brawlers could enjoy a change of scenery. I'm hoping placing the question here will attract the correct new audience. I've linked to the old discussion in my original post, for those interested. -- Rsl12 ( talk) 15:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Names are necessary at the top for consistency and to make sure the name of the whatever-it-is is clear. - Denimadept ( talk) 18:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
One thing I've not seen yet in this debate is a discussion about WP:Accessibility. What does a screen reader do when it encounters the infobox? Does the rendering sound logical (with or without names)? Or is the repetition of name obvious and silly? I admit I do not have the tools to test this myself. — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 23:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Andrwsc's point about accessibility sounds like a good one. I've invited the folks there to provide feedback. Also, I decided to look around at other web pages to see how they mix together factboxes with articles.
I kind of like the approach of titling infoboxes something like "At a Glance" or "Facts and Figures". If anyone wants to do more research, feel free to add to my list. -- Rsl12 ( talk) 22:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Acting Profile of Arnold Schwarzenegger |
---|
Born: January 19xx, etc. |
Why? Semantics. Accessibility. Infoboxes are data tables and as such should have either: a) a proper caption ("+"), or b) a header-cell that spans all the columns (typically 2 of them). Endorse the comments of Andy, Chris, and Graham; this is modern web-standards goodness. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 14:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Possibly something that needs to be discussed (or a clearer answer pointed to in the guideline), is which "full (official) name" to use. Are we meant to include titles? Middle names? Match the lead sentence's bold name? Match the current pagename (minus any disambig)?
Some of these examples have different wording in all 3 (page title, first bold name, infobox header).
(Please feel free to move this subthread to another talkpage, if that helps). Thanks. -- Quiddity ( talk) 20:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for the input. It seems there is a clear consensus for titles to be obligatory for infoboxes (though if anyone disagrees, please correct me now). I think there's still some discussion to be had over what exactly the title should contain, though the majority seem to be leaning towards leaving the titles as they are. The original purpose for bringing up discussion here, however, was to determine what to do about the hockey infoboxes, and in that sense, I think we've done enough. If anyone wants to stick around and hash out some possibilities of alternate titles ("Football Career At-a-glance", "Football Profile of xxx", full or common name), I'll stick around as well. If no-one has the energy for it, I will let the issue drop. -- Rsl12 ( talk) 17:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
At Template talk:Infobox ice hockey player#Moving on, some editors are disputing the consensus reached here. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Please come comment at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Maps_in_infoboxes.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 07:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
There's a debate about styling issues and the use of {{ Infobox}} at Template talk:Infobox ice hockey player#Further cleanup work which may be of interest. Contributions welcome. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I think there is a bug in this box for "location" and "place of birth". Try one in your sandbox and see if you get same result. It might not be exactly those two entries, because I can't exactly remember, so fill one out completely. Maybe I misused a (|). I did it twice and got the same type of mess up. Relatively new here, so I don't know how to fix the underlying template code. Bridgettttttte babble poop 11:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Input is requested at Template talk:Infobox weather#Green precipitation and rain. Thanks. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 05:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I propose that we add a paragraph to this MoS page, stipulating that the subject's URL, if included, be shown as, say:
[http://example.com example.com]
(rendering as
example.com)and not:
[http://example.com Official website]
(rendering as
Official website)This will achieve three things:
I will post pointers to this discussion on other project/ talk pages. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
<span class="nourlexpansion">
around it. --
The Evil IP address (
talk)
19:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Update: I've created {{ Urlw}}, based on the long-standing, but little-used, {{ Url}}, to implement the above proposal. If agreed, the logic could be adapted and included directly in infoboxes. See also {{ Url}}'s talk page for my proposal to merge the two. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Can we wrap this up, now? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
[moved this to another page] -- Noleander ( talk) 00:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
FYI there's an RfC currently happening here that may be of interest. OrangeDog ( τ • ε) 20:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
At this point, the prevalence of {{ infobox}} and templates styled like it means that the recommendation of a 25em / 300px width is followed by approximately no deployed templates. As the MoS is meant to reflect best practice, and the convention has long since moved on, this should be updated to 22em. I'll deploy this in a few days unless there's some serious reason to reconsider. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Measurement in "em" is unclear. Measurement in pixels is clear. - Denimadept ( talk) 16:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Standardization = step forward. Pichpich ( talk) 22:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
What are the benefits to the end reader of changing the advice? LunarLander // talk // 01:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)