Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes

Template not using English parameter names

I just came across {{Infobox German railway vehicle}} where all parameters have German names. Sure I can appreciate the convenience which this makes importing data from the German Wikipedia, but it turns into a major hassle for editors who are later to update the article. Is this at all appropriate? __meco (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. This is one of a number of like templates which are a tremendous help when translating or importing articles from other Wikis. In most cases they are permitted whilst this work is ongoing. This particular one is very large and also has features for which en.wiki has no equivalent. The actual parameters mirror those on de.wiki but the template info explains them. There are several options for improving it: make it dual-language; upgrade other templates with the additional features and close it down when its served its purpose; convert it into the main template (since it has many more features); or point it at an equivalent template, as has been done for Template:Infobox Burg. If you have a specific problem with one or two articles, let me know and I may be able to help you out. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

You can always wrap the German parameters in new English parameters, if you like. That way both can be used. --Ludwigs2 21:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

As long as you seem to have a grip on this I'm satisfied. I just wanted to bring it up as I rather balked. __meco (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Need help - hiding unused sections of an infobox

Here's the infobox -> Template:Infobox given name2. Here it is in action -> Gráinne (given name). See how the "Origin" header is showing up, even though all the four parameters in that little section aren't filled in? Can someone fix this, and have the template hide the sections if all their parameters aren't filled in? So if languageorigin, origin, derivation, meaning aren't used then the "Origin" header doesn't show up. And if variant, shortform, petname, cognate, anglicisation, derivative, seealso aren't used, then the "Other names" header doesn't show up?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Woo! I finally figured it out by following this as an example: Template:Infobox#Making fields optional.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Question about Company Infoboxes

I have a question about what type of info goes into the Company Infobox. Is this the right place to ask, or is there another page I should go to?

In the Infobox Company template, such as the one used in the Midtown Comics article, what should be placed on the Headquarters line? Should only one location be listed there? Or can/should multiple locations be listed, if the company considers themselves to have more than one headquarters? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The examples in {{Infobox company}}'s docs only list town&country. If that needs to be discussed/changed, then Template talk:Infobox company would probably be the first stop. I think it probably could benefit from discussion.

Also, I generally check FAs & FLs to find examples, eg WP:FA#Business, economics and finance currently includes BAE Systems, in which the "headquarters" field lists only the town&country.

For Midtown Comics, I'd tentatively suggest using that style, and just separate multiple entries with <br> linebreaks. However, that might break some code that uses the {{{location_city}}} code, hence I recommend asking at the template's talkpage. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• From their "contact us" page it appears that those addresses correspond to their three stores, none of which is singled out as the "headquarters". New York, New York is, IMHO, what's called for. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 01:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The Great Backlog Drive

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes of countries/non-countries

Howdy. If a country has no official language, which language should its infobox heading be written in? GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the English-language Wikipedia. Use English. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Bot to rename deprecated Infobox person fields

Hello! There is an open bot request for approval by Fti74 to rename the deprecated {{Infobox person}} fields for articles in Category:Infobox person using deprecated parameters (~28k pages). For example, |place_of_birth= to |birth_place=. The BRFA has stalled due to this being arguably "cosmetic" change in nature, yet beneficial to the editors. There is no exact bot or otherwise policy regarding this, and two BAG members have asked for broader input. Please comment whether you feel this is a suitable bot task, so we can gather a rough consensus one or the other way. Thank you. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Mobile phone websites

As technology marches on, many websites have started making versions for PDAs, iPhones, etc. While people are sometimes redirected to the PDA/iPhone version, this doesn't happen with all devices. And in many cases it is very inconvenient to navigate a "regular" website from a mobile device. Also usually "regular" websites do not link to their mobile counterparts.

I think that infoboxes need to have new fields for "mobile/PDA" versions of websites, to make it easier for people with mobile phones and PDAs and people with low bandwidth connections/older computers (most mobile websites can be accessed from a regular computer).

See also the EL noticeboard discussion Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Mobile_phone_editions_of_websites WhisperToMe (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

"INFOWATCH" outdated

I think any link "INFOWATCH" is outdated for this page (*or whatever for it is). I propose removing it from this box too: Wikipedia:INFOWATCH. -DePiep (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Help with Infoboxes

Hi, I'm a little confused about using infoboxes, can someone explain how I can create an infobox in an article that will contain certain information? GameSlayerGS (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• See Help:Infobox. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! GameSlayerGS (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Robotics infoboxes

Hi

I was going to start some infoboxes for the Robotics project and thought I would start with the Template:Infobox_robot/doc, it was way too narrow in scope and not of good enough quality for most of the 100 or so pages I was going to use it on, I think that is why it is so little used.

I have already started work on a new version User:Chaosdruid/Infobox_robotics and would like hear peoples comments to see if I am on track for the design phase.

I have used sections for deletion for the different types of robots. For example if an extra-terrestrial one the editor would delete the sections that are not "space" (UAV, AUV, etc.). This allows for different fields relevant to each type to be put into the different sections, denoted by the header fields, from one central type listing. For the 2 examples I have created the "space" one, Spirit, has destination (label5) and type (label6) in the details section and the "UAV" one, Sentry, has type (label5) and mission type (label6). Both these are from the relevant "space" and "UAV" sections. Chaosdruid (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

To be quite honest, I'd suggest taking a step back and defining the types of articles that this infobox is going to be used for before getting deeper into the layout of the template itself. Consider, for example, the various sections you list:

• Space: {{Infobox Spacecraft}} is currently widely used for "robotic" probes and so forth. While some modifications would doubtless be necessary to handle landed rather than orbital assets, I'm not convinced that the distinction between the two warrants a separate set of infoboxes. Conversely, would all unmanned spacecraft be considered "robots" and assigned infoboxes accordingly?
• UAV: Would one of the aircraft infoboxes (e.g. {{Infobox aircraft begin}}, etc.) not already be applicable here? Functionally, a UAV is an aircraft, albeit one without a crew; what would be the drawing line between "aircraft" and "robot" here (and do we necessarily need one)? To take this a step further, would an ICBM also be considered a "robotic vehicle" under such a rule?
• AUV/ROV: As with UAVs, what distinguishes these from submarines (other than being unmanned, obviously)? Consider, for example, Nereus, which currently has a ship/submarine infobox; what elements would be provided by a "robot" infobox that are not currently present, and why would the creation of a separate infobox be better than integrating these elements into the existing one?

I think that it would be useful to consider these questions up front rather than going through an extended design phase only to find that we've created something technically impressive but lacking in well-defined purpose. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I know it's taken me a while to get back here, but I have been thinking about it quite hard! I appreciate what you are saying and you did raise some interesting and thought provoking points!.

Spacecraft - strictly speaking a spacecraft is something designed to travel through space, not something which is designed to roam about on the surface of a panet or moon or asteroid etc. In reality I suppose it would be up to consensus, if there was a better robot template, would they have used the spacecraft one? For an unmanned spacecraft, that would be a problem. Strictly speaking a robot has to be capable of autonomous action. If it was simply a remotely controlled spacecraft, then it would not be a robot. I cannot think of any that would fit this description though, as most are preprogrammed and do not really rely on autonomous actions.

UAV: Most UAVs are aircraft. However that, once again, depends largely on the "aircraft" term, things such as the entomopter and Aeryon Scout have control systems information that may well not be provided for by the aircraft infoboxes. It may be true that the aircraft infobox could be expanded instead though.

Similarly the AUV may have information that is not provided for by the submarine infobox. ROVs are not robots, and would therefore not be covered.

I will keep thinking about these things as the points are well made! Chaosdruid (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Brackets within the link of the "File:"

I try to use this format [[File:someimage|link={{{place}}}}]] by placing a value of the parameter to link to the article, but some of the editors give the value within the infobox in square brackets.

If we add the value as:

[[File:Flag of the United States.svg|20px|link=USA]] =>

is OK, but when we do:

[[File:Flag of the United States.svg|20px|link=[[USA]]]] =>

, we can't link to the article. Is there a possibility to solve this problem?--WlaKom (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Userbox

I can't find a userbox for this project. Is there one? Otherwise, could someone please make one? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing/Verifiability

Should information in the Infobox be sourced if it merely repeats material in the article body in which a source appears? Should it be like the Lead in that editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for material if it is controversial and likely to be challenged? Nightscream (talk) 07:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I've continued this discussion [Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Sourcing.2FVerifiability here]. Nightscream (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there a way to make an infobox align to the left side instead of the right side?

Is there a way to make an infobox align to the left side instead of the right side?--Jax 0677 (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Infobox problem

Recently (since yesterday) I've noticed that all infoboxes align to the left instead of the right. Also, the lead section no longer word wraps around the infobox. This leaves a lot of unnecessary white space to the right of the infobox forcing the reader to scroll down past the infobox in order to read the lead section of the article.

Is this a problem with Wikipedia or is this a problem caused by my browser (Firefox 3.6)?Music+mas (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Does this happen for you on all articles or just a few? If it's only a few, there may be a problem with just those articles. All articles look fine to me right now. Sounds like either a browser issue or an internet connection issue. I know when my Wi-Fi signal is kind of shotty, not all of the code executes correctly, and sometimes the infobox shows up on the left side of the page, but usually reloading the page fixes that. Have you tried purging the page or bypassing your cache? [You also may want to think about updating Firefox].--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, bypassing the cache fixed the problem.Music+mas (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)