Template talk:Infobox software: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:05, 20 April 2020

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Infobox software template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8: 90 days

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Q1:

A1:

Template:Infobox software is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.

Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Template‑class

	This template is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Template	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This template is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This template is supported by Free and open-source software.

Proposal to Add a field to link to Changelog or release Notes

Add support status field

Software generally has a support period, where if a user is using a supported version then they can reasonably assume that bugs will be fixed or addressed as they arise. This information is of general interest to people who are reading the article for a piece of software. Some more specialised software templates have a field for this (such as a the support_status field in Template:Infobox OS version) but this generic software infobox template does not have such a field. I think we should add an optional support_status field in line with the one used in infobox OS version et al. which can be used to list the versions of software that are supported. Thoughts? --Deskana (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Came here for the same. And would say we need a "End-of-life date" field. Tabdiukov (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made a prototype modification in my userspace, User:Deskana/infobox software, which seems to be working just fine on User:Deskana/infobox software/kubernetes. I'll probably copy it over here in the next few days. --Deskana (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a fan whatsoever of covering parameters in this template (or apparently in the other) which need routine changing/maintenance like this one. The real general reader is one who doesn't understand what the software is or does, not one who cares about the version numbers that are indicated, and that reader is also not served by this information. --Izno (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding parameter 'number of users' to the template

The infobox is used in pages of most of the apps and software pages. I propose the addition a new parameter num_users (number of users) to the template. The parameter will depict number of active registered users. - Sanyam.wikime (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's too vague. Not all users are "registered users". And it is too difficult to have reliable information. Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Publisher" section

Can we add a section for a publisher? "Original author" just isn't a true description for some publishers. AntiGravityMaster (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata website info

Was it really such a smart idea to automatically pull in official websites from Wikidata? I've just been tearing my hair out trying to remove a link that has become an attack site. It is not obvious where it is coming from. I really don't see the point of storing this on Wikidata. SpinningSpark 11:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I think it is a good idea to pull this information from Wikidata, it needs to be more clearly/prominently documented. Also, the current implementation doesn't handle items with multiple websites correctly. Take a look at Node.js for example. --Alex Rosenberg (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The multiple website bug was fixed by IceWelder --Alex Rosenberg (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Empty "Usage" section

Recently, an empty "Usage" section displays in the infobox in many articles, for example PuTTY, Far Manager or Firefox. Can you please take a look? I do not have the privileges to edit this template. --Prikryl (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed here. Nardog (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Prikryl (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 37: / Line 37: @@
 :While I think it is a good idea to pull this information from Wikidata, it needs to be more clearly/prominently documented.  Also, the current implementation doesn't handle items with multiple websites correctly.  Take a look at [[Node.js]] for example.  --''[[User:Alex_rosenberg35|Alex Rosenberg]]'' ([[User_talk:Alex_rosenberg35|talk]]) 16:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
+::Update: The multiple website bug was fixed by [[User:IceWelder|IceWelder]] --''[[User:Alex_rosenberg35|Alex Rosenberg]]'' ([[User_talk:Alex_rosenberg35|talk]]) 18:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 == Empty "Usage" section ==