![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
header1 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
label2 | data2 | ||||
|
Hi all, I wonder if there are any efficient way of including a collapsible section within an infobox? By collapsible section, I mean a [collapse/expand] button next to a header text, and that button can hide or show all following label/data rows. I have seen some earlier attempts in the following list of infobox templates:
but what bothers me is that they are not standard and not expandable. I have also checked that adding a child {{ Infobox}} would not work, since child infobox is not actually a <table>. That's why I would like to know, is there any suggested way to perform that? Thanks. — Peter why 11:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
|bodyclass=collapsible collapsed
. my goal is to have {{
infobox subbox bodystyle}} as |subbox=yes
or something similar, but until then, I put the class statements in a template. this way they can be easily tracked and converted later.
Frietjes (
talk)
14:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Hey there WikiProject Infoboxes
. I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but can one of you help me make an infobox? I want to make a an infobox for
YouTube channels at {{
Infobox YouTube channel}}. I just do not know how. Cheers,
nerd
fighter
14:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on the replacement of {{ Infobox musical artist}} with {{ Infobox orchestra}} at Template talk:Infobox orchestra#Use of this infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I feel WP's non-committal attitude towards infoboxes is the cause of a lot of unnecesary dissention on WP. I see Andy Mabbett (whose energy seems limitless) arguing with various parties, and it strikes me as such a waste of energy. If there was a clear direction, everyone could either fall in line or get out of the way. Of course the nature of WP is that there are few hard-and-fast rules (which I think is a major cause of arguments). I wish there could be more of an endorsement that infoboxes are a good and recommended thing, and a necessary feature if WP is going to move into the semantic web. Is there any path through which this could be achieved? -- kosboot ( talk) 15:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
The content issues (that are specific to each article) can and need to be solved, and it requires more work than most drive-by !voters or infobox-adders are often willing to do.
This issue doesn't need force of weight behind it. It needs careful understanding of why exactly the sane/rational/intelligent editors have certain objections. Most of the issues can be resolved, but require smart solutions, such as the very restrictive documentation that we came up with for Template:Infobox classical composer. To repeat: Well-written template documentation, is a key step in solving this.
Bruteforce majority will end badly (with the editors that churn out Brilliant Prose, ie. the meat of the Featured articles, retiring in groups). Slow and careful analysis, of the all-too-real problems in infoboxes for topics with subjective areas of classification (eg "genre" or "ethnicity" or "other occupation") will potentially result in amicable steps forward. I sure as hell hope we take that slow path. – Quiddity ( talk) 00:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I think it's worth pointing out that infoboxes may be much more helpful to some projects than others. I'm working on one about American federal legislation. In this case, a good infobox provides a quick bite of helpful information about the bill the article is about - who introduced it, when, what committees looked at it, major votes on the bill, etc. It's easy to add that data, it's all strictly factual, and it adds value to the page to readers. I hope that any decisions made about infoboxes wouldn't negatively impact cases like this one. (I do agree that some infoboxes need better documentation...). Just my two cents as a fairly new user. HistoricMN44 ( talk) 15:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I'm part of a new Wikiproject, Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Federal Government Legislative Data, focused on writing articles about notable pieces of United States legislation. The current infobox related to this, Template:Infobox U.S. legislation, is designed primarily to contain information about enacted legislation, whereas our project is interested in also including notable proposed legislation. We'd like to see some changes in the infobox to make it more friendly/helpful to this purpose. I've outlined the proposed changes here: Template talk:Infobox U.S. legislation#Requested Modifications. I'm too new at this to do this myself and I don't want to screw up all the pages that are using this infobox. Can anyone check out my proposed modifications and help me out? Thanks! HistoricMN44 ( talk) 14:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Infoboxes are discussed, very negatively, at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-07-10/Dispatch. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I have filed an Arb request here: link — Ched : ? 17:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Should the many infoboxs in biographies include the parameter "Resting place"? It seems it would be more encyclopedic for that parameter to say "Buried at". Please indicate if this is something you agree or disagree with. :) John Cline ( talk) 06:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I have created Category:Infobox wrapper templates. Please feel free to make use of it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
It occurs to me that, when we use {{
Infobox person}}, we usually complete |occupation=
with "journalist", "pilot" or whatever, but when we use a specific infobox, like, for example, {{
Infobox scientist}}, {{
Infobox footballer}} or {{
Infobox writer}}, we often don't give the occupation state the respective role - which is clearly a - and often the - key facet of their life and notability.
We could, perhaps, add an optional parameter to each biographical infobox, which could have a default value if no other (including "null") is set.
How should we best proceed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
|occupation = professional spelunker
that we know our erstwhile ballet dancer actually ran a cave diving company for his day job, but don't assume that every notable baseball player in history was a professional at the game.
Van
Isaac
WS
Vex
contribs
20:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
As a stalking horse (i.e. I don't expect this to be the final resolution), I have added a "Pirate" subheader to {{
Infobox pirate}}, which can optionally be overridden using |occupation=
, as at
John Ordronaux (privateer).
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
21:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
So, how so we take this forward? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I've added the role to {{ Infobox cricketer}} (see, for example, Joel Garner), {{ Infobox gymnast}} and {{ Infobox golfer}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
|occupation=
, where it exists.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
15:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
This section covers too much without direction.
{{ Infobox pirate}} now uniformly displays the word 'Pirate' in the box header linked to the article Pirate. I think it's fair to say the infobox labels its subject a pirate. -- P64 ( talk) 19:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
|role=
. I'd he happy to do that for the other templates mentioned above, also.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
21:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I am against the addition of the gender parameter in pages. I would like infoboxes to be gender neutral. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 06:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I think these changes are getting a bit ridiculous. The stated "purpose" of an infobox is to "summarize [the] key facts" of an article, but it's not as if we need to have the infobox functioning as Cliff's Notes for the whole article. Gender and occupation are the most basic characteristics of any person and will be made abundantly clear within the first few sentences in 99% of articles. And even if gender is considered essential for all infoboxes, the ♂ and ♀ are far from universally understood, and must be violating MOS:ICON in some respect – what's wrong with "male fooer" and "female fooer"? (I feel like I'm rambling a bit here, but I just can't see the point of the changes). IgnorantArmies 12:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I've been counting up our infoboxes; we have over 2.3 million.
Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes/Statistics, and feel free to make additions or fixes there. Would it be possible to automate the transclusion counts? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
We can reduce the numbers for medal template by adding the infobox sportsperson in its position. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 19:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Please have a look at User_talk:Frietjes#Lowercase_parameters_.2F_bare_filenames of what can be done. For instance, I would like some list with infoboxes that use variations of image_size and/or not support bare filenames. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 20:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Input would be appreciated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Enforcing infobox parameters (or not)?
The gist: I cut down the number of parameters used in the infobox for the article I wrote for The End of the Road (a novel) with the intention of making the infobox generally applicable to all the many editions of the book. Three editors at WikiProject:Novels decided that the infobox must contain ISBN, page count, publisher, and cover image of the first edition. We see the infobox as performing different purposes, and I would like to get input from the community on the scope and purpose of {{ Infobox book}} and of the WikiProject. Curly Turkey ( gobble) 05:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I got an RfCbot invite to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Template editor user right and thought this project should have an opportunity to participate. Van Isaac WS Vex contribs 06:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I think in some cases, infobox problems can be solved by entering "see text" in a field. For example, Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes#Example 3 shows an old revision of Ponte Vecchio that listed three different years for construction. At least some users are only going to articles to see a basic bit of information like that. Placing "see text" under year constructed explicitly tells readers that "when was it built" is not a simple question to answer. This would have applications in many other fields, such as a species whose classification is disputed perhaps. Ego White Tray ( talk) 05:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
A set of stubs for UK NHS Foundation Trusts are being created with handcrafted infoboxes with various problems. See Mersey Care NHS Trust for the latest example - many others already created by the same editor. As one easily fixable point: they seem too wide. What's the standard setting for width of an infobox? Could an Infobox geek perhaps drop by at User talk:Rathfelder and offer advice? Thanks. Pam D 15:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Is there a policy, consensus, or recommendation on whether it is appropriate to use more than one infobox in an article?
Specifically, I am wondering whether Fortress of Luxembourg, which currently has "Infobox military installation", should additionally use "Infobox historic site", since it is/was both a military installation, and a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
Thanks Dr Gangrene ( talk) 15:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I am new to this page, but not to WP. It's hard for me to understand why "a quick and convenient summary of the key facts about a subject, in a consistent format and layout" (as per infobox basics) does not always include the amount of children a person had. Why is that? Seems to me that the most vital "key facts" about anyone, impacting greatly on h lifa and bio, would be how many chilren h/s had, no matter how long those children all lived. Please explain! -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 09:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Template:Cleanup-infobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
DrKiernan (
talk)
11:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
A couple of weeks ago I noticed an ambiguity in the guidance of MOS:INFOBOX. I proposed a change on the guideline talk page (and received one endorsement). As the proposed change did not generate much discussion, I implemented it. However, I did not realize this WikiProject existed, so I did not post a message here. Well, here is a notice for WikiProject members. Please review the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Infobox guidance ambiguity regarding summarization discussion and chime in as you desire. – S. Rich ( talk) 18:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
The discussion regard a proposed change to infobox guidance is still ongoing. Editors are encouraged to comment. – S. Rich ( talk) 15:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello! There was some template used to hide some content of infobox in article. But I can't remember the templates' name :( Maybe someone could help? -- Edgars2007 ( talk/ contribs) 18:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Having been asked a couple of times lately, how to embed templates within infoboxes, I've started:
Please help to develop/ deploy them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Colleagues may be interested to know that DBpedia recently added support for a number of infobox subtemplates, including:
see DBpedia live:
and note the "dbpedia-owl:citizenship" properties, for example, pulled from |citizenship=
in
Albert Einstein, which uses {{
Plainlist}}. (Values in the dbpprop namespace are not split correctly, but this will be fixed in a forthcoming update). DBpedia static will be updated on the next release.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
11:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
The application of an Infobox appears discretionary. There have been occasions where an Infobox added by one editor has been removed by another on this basis. This can lead to contention. There seems no clear guidelines as to whether or not an Infobox should be added, and if added, under what circumstance.
Questions: Can the Project provide guidelines as to when an Infobox is best added, and when best not ? If some editors see the value of an Infobox, and others do not, what does the Project advise for resolution ? Please see the discussion here. Many thanks. Acabashi ( talk) 03:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
@ Acabashi: That was pretty much what the arbcom case was about: The anti-infobox militancy of the WP:Classical music projects, particularly opera, and their total conniption fit that some editors wanted infoboxes. Several of us (including moi) argued for a project by project base, but the best we got was "guidelines are OK, but they don't trump overall wiki policy." So yes, I happen to agree with you. My advice is to follow WP:BRD and avoid any kind of 3RR violation. Yeah, it's a damn dramafest, and I actually agree with you, but the last round of this exhausted me and wound up with two other damn good editors placed under restrictions and yet more admonished to be civil. Ask Pigsonthewing about it, he was one of the victims. Montanabw (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Ich muss weg | |
---|---|
BWV 999 | |
Cantata by J. S. Bach | |
File:Road Runner decal 2 Detail.jpg |
Like No shit!
Montanabw
(talk)
18:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Would someone help updating the infobox at Washington Healthplanfinder. Thanks in advance, X Ottawahitech ( talk) 03:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I have proposed a change to the genre field in infoboxes related to music (albums, singles, music artists) here. If any user could comment on it it would be greatly appreciated it. :) Andrzejbanas ( talk) 20:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Just seeking a wider range of input from informed persons at Template_talk:Height#rfc_97AACED.-- Gibson Flying V ( talk) 23:34, 27 January 2014 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
header1 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
label2 | data2 | ||||
|
Hi all, I wonder if there are any efficient way of including a collapsible section within an infobox? By collapsible section, I mean a [collapse/expand] button next to a header text, and that button can hide or show all following label/data rows. I have seen some earlier attempts in the following list of infobox templates:
but what bothers me is that they are not standard and not expandable. I have also checked that adding a child {{ Infobox}} would not work, since child infobox is not actually a <table>. That's why I would like to know, is there any suggested way to perform that? Thanks. — Peter why 11:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
|bodyclass=collapsible collapsed
. my goal is to have {{
infobox subbox bodystyle}} as |subbox=yes
or something similar, but until then, I put the class statements in a template. this way they can be easily tracked and converted later.
Frietjes (
talk)
14:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Hey there WikiProject Infoboxes
. I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but can one of you help me make an infobox? I want to make a an infobox for
YouTube channels at {{
Infobox YouTube channel}}. I just do not know how. Cheers,
nerd
fighter
14:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on the replacement of {{ Infobox musical artist}} with {{ Infobox orchestra}} at Template talk:Infobox orchestra#Use of this infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I feel WP's non-committal attitude towards infoboxes is the cause of a lot of unnecesary dissention on WP. I see Andy Mabbett (whose energy seems limitless) arguing with various parties, and it strikes me as such a waste of energy. If there was a clear direction, everyone could either fall in line or get out of the way. Of course the nature of WP is that there are few hard-and-fast rules (which I think is a major cause of arguments). I wish there could be more of an endorsement that infoboxes are a good and recommended thing, and a necessary feature if WP is going to move into the semantic web. Is there any path through which this could be achieved? -- kosboot ( talk) 15:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
The content issues (that are specific to each article) can and need to be solved, and it requires more work than most drive-by !voters or infobox-adders are often willing to do.
This issue doesn't need force of weight behind it. It needs careful understanding of why exactly the sane/rational/intelligent editors have certain objections. Most of the issues can be resolved, but require smart solutions, such as the very restrictive documentation that we came up with for Template:Infobox classical composer. To repeat: Well-written template documentation, is a key step in solving this.
Bruteforce majority will end badly (with the editors that churn out Brilliant Prose, ie. the meat of the Featured articles, retiring in groups). Slow and careful analysis, of the all-too-real problems in infoboxes for topics with subjective areas of classification (eg "genre" or "ethnicity" or "other occupation") will potentially result in amicable steps forward. I sure as hell hope we take that slow path. – Quiddity ( talk) 00:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I think it's worth pointing out that infoboxes may be much more helpful to some projects than others. I'm working on one about American federal legislation. In this case, a good infobox provides a quick bite of helpful information about the bill the article is about - who introduced it, when, what committees looked at it, major votes on the bill, etc. It's easy to add that data, it's all strictly factual, and it adds value to the page to readers. I hope that any decisions made about infoboxes wouldn't negatively impact cases like this one. (I do agree that some infoboxes need better documentation...). Just my two cents as a fairly new user. HistoricMN44 ( talk) 15:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I'm part of a new Wikiproject, Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Federal Government Legislative Data, focused on writing articles about notable pieces of United States legislation. The current infobox related to this, Template:Infobox U.S. legislation, is designed primarily to contain information about enacted legislation, whereas our project is interested in also including notable proposed legislation. We'd like to see some changes in the infobox to make it more friendly/helpful to this purpose. I've outlined the proposed changes here: Template talk:Infobox U.S. legislation#Requested Modifications. I'm too new at this to do this myself and I don't want to screw up all the pages that are using this infobox. Can anyone check out my proposed modifications and help me out? Thanks! HistoricMN44 ( talk) 14:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Infoboxes are discussed, very negatively, at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-07-10/Dispatch. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I have filed an Arb request here: link — Ched : ? 17:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Should the many infoboxs in biographies include the parameter "Resting place"? It seems it would be more encyclopedic for that parameter to say "Buried at". Please indicate if this is something you agree or disagree with. :) John Cline ( talk) 06:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I have created Category:Infobox wrapper templates. Please feel free to make use of it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
It occurs to me that, when we use {{
Infobox person}}, we usually complete |occupation=
with "journalist", "pilot" or whatever, but when we use a specific infobox, like, for example, {{
Infobox scientist}}, {{
Infobox footballer}} or {{
Infobox writer}}, we often don't give the occupation state the respective role - which is clearly a - and often the - key facet of their life and notability.
We could, perhaps, add an optional parameter to each biographical infobox, which could have a default value if no other (including "null") is set.
How should we best proceed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
|occupation = professional spelunker
that we know our erstwhile ballet dancer actually ran a cave diving company for his day job, but don't assume that every notable baseball player in history was a professional at the game.
Van
Isaac
WS
Vex
contribs
20:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
As a stalking horse (i.e. I don't expect this to be the final resolution), I have added a "Pirate" subheader to {{
Infobox pirate}}, which can optionally be overridden using |occupation=
, as at
John Ordronaux (privateer).
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
21:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
So, how so we take this forward? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I've added the role to {{ Infobox cricketer}} (see, for example, Joel Garner), {{ Infobox gymnast}} and {{ Infobox golfer}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
|occupation=
, where it exists.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
15:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
This section covers too much without direction.
{{ Infobox pirate}} now uniformly displays the word 'Pirate' in the box header linked to the article Pirate. I think it's fair to say the infobox labels its subject a pirate. -- P64 ( talk) 19:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
|role=
. I'd he happy to do that for the other templates mentioned above, also.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
21:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I am against the addition of the gender parameter in pages. I would like infoboxes to be gender neutral. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 06:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I think these changes are getting a bit ridiculous. The stated "purpose" of an infobox is to "summarize [the] key facts" of an article, but it's not as if we need to have the infobox functioning as Cliff's Notes for the whole article. Gender and occupation are the most basic characteristics of any person and will be made abundantly clear within the first few sentences in 99% of articles. And even if gender is considered essential for all infoboxes, the ♂ and ♀ are far from universally understood, and must be violating MOS:ICON in some respect – what's wrong with "male fooer" and "female fooer"? (I feel like I'm rambling a bit here, but I just can't see the point of the changes). IgnorantArmies 12:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I've been counting up our infoboxes; we have over 2.3 million.
Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes/Statistics, and feel free to make additions or fixes there. Would it be possible to automate the transclusion counts? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
We can reduce the numbers for medal template by adding the infobox sportsperson in its position. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 19:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Please have a look at User_talk:Frietjes#Lowercase_parameters_.2F_bare_filenames of what can be done. For instance, I would like some list with infoboxes that use variations of image_size and/or not support bare filenames. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 20:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Input would be appreciated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Enforcing infobox parameters (or not)?
The gist: I cut down the number of parameters used in the infobox for the article I wrote for The End of the Road (a novel) with the intention of making the infobox generally applicable to all the many editions of the book. Three editors at WikiProject:Novels decided that the infobox must contain ISBN, page count, publisher, and cover image of the first edition. We see the infobox as performing different purposes, and I would like to get input from the community on the scope and purpose of {{ Infobox book}} and of the WikiProject. Curly Turkey ( gobble) 05:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I got an RfCbot invite to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Template editor user right and thought this project should have an opportunity to participate. Van Isaac WS Vex contribs 06:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I think in some cases, infobox problems can be solved by entering "see text" in a field. For example, Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes#Example 3 shows an old revision of Ponte Vecchio that listed three different years for construction. At least some users are only going to articles to see a basic bit of information like that. Placing "see text" under year constructed explicitly tells readers that "when was it built" is not a simple question to answer. This would have applications in many other fields, such as a species whose classification is disputed perhaps. Ego White Tray ( talk) 05:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
A set of stubs for UK NHS Foundation Trusts are being created with handcrafted infoboxes with various problems. See Mersey Care NHS Trust for the latest example - many others already created by the same editor. As one easily fixable point: they seem too wide. What's the standard setting for width of an infobox? Could an Infobox geek perhaps drop by at User talk:Rathfelder and offer advice? Thanks. Pam D 15:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Is there a policy, consensus, or recommendation on whether it is appropriate to use more than one infobox in an article?
Specifically, I am wondering whether Fortress of Luxembourg, which currently has "Infobox military installation", should additionally use "Infobox historic site", since it is/was both a military installation, and a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
Thanks Dr Gangrene ( talk) 15:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I am new to this page, but not to WP. It's hard for me to understand why "a quick and convenient summary of the key facts about a subject, in a consistent format and layout" (as per infobox basics) does not always include the amount of children a person had. Why is that? Seems to me that the most vital "key facts" about anyone, impacting greatly on h lifa and bio, would be how many chilren h/s had, no matter how long those children all lived. Please explain! -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 09:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Template:Cleanup-infobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
DrKiernan (
talk)
11:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
A couple of weeks ago I noticed an ambiguity in the guidance of MOS:INFOBOX. I proposed a change on the guideline talk page (and received one endorsement). As the proposed change did not generate much discussion, I implemented it. However, I did not realize this WikiProject existed, so I did not post a message here. Well, here is a notice for WikiProject members. Please review the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Infobox guidance ambiguity regarding summarization discussion and chime in as you desire. – S. Rich ( talk) 18:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
The discussion regard a proposed change to infobox guidance is still ongoing. Editors are encouraged to comment. – S. Rich ( talk) 15:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello! There was some template used to hide some content of infobox in article. But I can't remember the templates' name :( Maybe someone could help? -- Edgars2007 ( talk/ contribs) 18:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Having been asked a couple of times lately, how to embed templates within infoboxes, I've started:
Please help to develop/ deploy them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Colleagues may be interested to know that DBpedia recently added support for a number of infobox subtemplates, including:
see DBpedia live:
and note the "dbpedia-owl:citizenship" properties, for example, pulled from |citizenship=
in
Albert Einstein, which uses {{
Plainlist}}. (Values in the dbpprop namespace are not split correctly, but this will be fixed in a forthcoming update). DBpedia static will be updated on the next release.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
11:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
The application of an Infobox appears discretionary. There have been occasions where an Infobox added by one editor has been removed by another on this basis. This can lead to contention. There seems no clear guidelines as to whether or not an Infobox should be added, and if added, under what circumstance.
Questions: Can the Project provide guidelines as to when an Infobox is best added, and when best not ? If some editors see the value of an Infobox, and others do not, what does the Project advise for resolution ? Please see the discussion here. Many thanks. Acabashi ( talk) 03:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
@ Acabashi: That was pretty much what the arbcom case was about: The anti-infobox militancy of the WP:Classical music projects, particularly opera, and their total conniption fit that some editors wanted infoboxes. Several of us (including moi) argued for a project by project base, but the best we got was "guidelines are OK, but they don't trump overall wiki policy." So yes, I happen to agree with you. My advice is to follow WP:BRD and avoid any kind of 3RR violation. Yeah, it's a damn dramafest, and I actually agree with you, but the last round of this exhausted me and wound up with two other damn good editors placed under restrictions and yet more admonished to be civil. Ask Pigsonthewing about it, he was one of the victims. Montanabw (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Ich muss weg | |
---|---|
BWV 999 | |
Cantata by J. S. Bach | |
File:Road Runner decal 2 Detail.jpg |
Like No shit!
Montanabw
(talk)
18:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Would someone help updating the infobox at Washington Healthplanfinder. Thanks in advance, X Ottawahitech ( talk) 03:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I have proposed a change to the genre field in infoboxes related to music (albums, singles, music artists) here. If any user could comment on it it would be greatly appreciated it. :) Andrzejbanas ( talk) 20:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Just seeking a wider range of input from informed persons at Template_talk:Height#rfc_97AACED.-- Gibson Flying V ( talk) 23:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)