Template talk:Infobox planet

Discussion on those little astronomical symbols at the top of the infobox

Please be aware there is an ongoing discussion about those symbols, at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Move planet symbols placed at the planets and moons' infobox title. — HTGS (talk) 05:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit request 17 May 2023

Description of suggested change: Move planetary symbols down from the infobox title to a section in the infobox. Village pump discussion: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Move_planet_symbols_placed_at_the_planets_and_moons'_infobox_title

Diff:

Change this line from:

| title       = {{{name|<includeonly>{{PAGENAMEBASE}}</includeonly>}}} {{{symbol|}}}

to this:

| title       = {{{name|<includeonly>{{PAGENAMEBASE}}</includeonly>}}}

And add this line after data16:

| label17     = [[Planet symbols|Symbol]]
|  data17     = {{{symbol|}}}

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 17:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane and Paine Ellsworth: At the VPR thread I had already described the necessary change, and this request fell slightly short. I've fixed it up now. For protected edit requests to templates, it's always best to use the sandbox to describe exactly what needs to be done, that way there's no ambiguity and no need to paste code blobs into the talk page thread. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Saw your sandbox es of "unlikely to be necessary, but just in case", and since it was not part of the request it was not included. Curious as to why now you think it is required for "completeness"? Have you changed your mind and find it now to be necessary? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 05:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The presence of the other textual parameters in that block is tested, the heading "Designations" only appears if one or more of |mpc_name=|mp_name=|named_after=|alt_names=|mp_category=|pronounce=|pronounced=|adjective=|adjectives=|symbol= is non-blank - note that |mp_name= is defeated by |mpc_name= being present but blank. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I do agree that sandboxing is useful (and often encouraged) for anything more complex than "adding in a new parameter", but regarding this specific issue, I have negated it entirely in the future by using |autoheaders=y. Primefac (talk) 09:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit request 1 June 2023

Description of suggested change: Add a Description to the lowercase "symbol" Parameter in TemplateData.

Diff:

Change this line from:

−

"symbol": {}, "image": { "label": "Image", "type": "wiki-file-name", "suggested": true

+

"symbol": { "label": "Symbol ", "type": "string", "required": false, "suggested": false, "deprecated": false, "description": "symbol of planet"

99.236.142.92 (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The /doc is unprotected so you are welcome to make the change yourself, though I am concerned that the change you propose will not work owing to the proliferation of {. Primefac (talk) 09:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 January 2024

Change the background to a web color, so from:

| headerstyle = {{#if:{{{background|{{{bgcolour|}}}}}}|background-color:{{{background|{{{bgcolour|}}}}}}|background-color:#E0CCFF}}

to:

| headerstyle = {{#if:{{{background|{{{bgcolour|}}}}}}|background-color:{{{background|{{{bgcolour|}}}}}}|background-color:LightGray}}

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

​ Genuinely curious, why? Primefac (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Purple headers in the infobox feels out of place and clash with the infobox pictures. Since this template is used most in minor planets and most minor planets are of gray color, this change will make the header color feels more concordant with the image. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

This feels like something that should have consensus, so I am not going to enact this right away but will leave an opportunity for folks to comment on the proposed change. Primefac (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I've cross-posted this to WT:AST and am watching the page, so wherever the consensus ends up I should be able to deal with it. Primefac (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  →   I'm indifferent. Either works. SWinxy (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Opposed. The current color matches well with the color of links, and so doesn't look out of place. It also highlights the sections of the box better. Grey is pretty drab. Maybe though we could automate background=lightgrey when minorplanet=yes? — kwami (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - The proposed   is nearly/identical to the Lists of minor planets'  . The LoMPs have used white for inner main best asteroids, and 2 slightly darker shades of grey for middle and outer main belt asteroids for at least as long as Template:Minor planet color code legend has been around (at least ~7.5 years), so it would be best to not overlap planet colors with minor planet colors.   is not used in the LoMPs.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Do remember that almost all minor planets that have its own article uses this template, like 1 Ceres or 1000 Piazzia. Infobox of actual planets in the Solar System already have their own headings that match their colors. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

image size → image scale

'image size' is deprecated in info boxes (as generally for images) because it overrides the reader's default preferences and is thus a problem with accessibility. For example, if a reader with poor vision sets their display to 200%, and we size an image to 150% to show greater detail, the reader will see it at 75% the size of an unadjusted image, so trying to make an image larger can actually make it smaller and more difficult to see. The solution is to use the 'upright' parameter, which uses the reader's preference as the default. Setting that to 1.5 will increase an image's size to 150% for everyone. However, we probably shouldn't be individually resizing very many images in the infobox (unless maybe they have an odd shape; e.g. maybe Perdita (moon)), and instead choose a standard size here for consistency.

(The weird parameter name "upright" is due to its history. It was originally a quick way to set 'upright' (portrait) images to 75% of the default width of a landscape image, so it wouldn't be oversized, which is why setting image_scale=yes reduces it to 75%. The param was later extended to relative rescaling of any size. The unintuitive name might be why people don't use it much; it took me years to realize what it was.)

There are lot of template errors generated for deprecated 'image size' (e.g. asteroids with the asteroid number used for the image size!), which I'll be going through with JWB. Most are historical detritus that should be cleaned out anyway (e.g. from years ago when all imgs were individually set to 250 px rather than using a common infobox default).

Note that AFAIK small images will not be embiggened past their actual size. We've been reducing them to their original size in pixels; that's no longer necessary.

The default size should now be encoded as "upright = 1.3". We can adjust that here if e.g. a slightly larger size would be better for this template. (Most of the resized imgs were set at 250 to 265 px, 10%-15% larger than the WP default of 225 px; a few orbital diagrams of asteroids and the photo of 243 Ida were set to 300 px, equivalent to image_scale=1.33.) On my machine, the pics at Earth, Jupiter and HD 81040 b, for example, are just under the width of the infobox at image_scale=1.5 and so IMO look best at that size, but I don't know how that would translate to other readers. — kwami (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)