Template talk:Infobox/Archive 2

Possible Compromise
In one of his edit summaries, Netoholic stated that this was "Infobox 101" and that conditionals are therefore not appropriate for inclusion here. Well, if that's the case, how about "Infobox 201"? How about if I make Template:Infobox Conditionals, which includes current best practice for empty field hiding, and then include a HTML comment in Template:Infobox stating where to look for information on this? I would just go ahead and do it, but someone protected the page again. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yea. Thats not that bad. What about: Template:Infobox qif? But I would accept Template:Infobox Conditionals too. --Ligulem 19:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If the name includes a specific reference to qif then it will probably need to be renamed when conditionals are added to the software. So it's better to name it something more generic. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok. Let's take Template:Infobox Conditionals. Name is not important as it's just an example infobox and not meant to be used for lot of inclusions. --Ligulem 23:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've created the template based upon the disputed template here. As it's meant to demonstrate a more advanced form of template use, someone might want to hack together some additional "advanced" examples. A link from this template to the new template should be created once this one is unprotected. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - in my opinion something like Template:Advanced Infobox, with a link pointing to it on this template, would probably be the best compromise. --Marknew 20:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable to me as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If you can make a compromise and that stops the edit war, go for it.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  03:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought that the compromise meant that Template:Infobox Conditionals should contain a qif only variant and that this here would be reserved for a hiddenStructure example? Think I was wrong, as we now have hiddenStructure and qif together in Template:Infobox Conditionals. Hmm, Just wondering... --Ligulem 12:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It appears Trodel and Netoholic are not interested in compromise: with that in mind, neither am I. I am now reverting back to the version with the qif examples contained in the template directly. Remind me not to be baited into believing these two are interested in resolving this dispute in the future... —Locke Cole • t • c 02:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It isn't all or nothing. If you want to discuss the inclusion of a link to the complex example, then discuss it. Don't destabilize over a minor point. -- Netoholic @ 04:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh the irony in being accused of "destabilizing" when you and Trodel are the ones who removed the link... mountain out of a mole hill, anyone? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, how about this: something I've put together very quickly, so may need to be rephrased. Would this solve the edit war?
 * Template:Infobox Conditionals: Advanced techniques for hiding fields in infoboxes -  Note: This infobox contains some extremely complicated and esoteric features of template syntax. Having experience in advanced template syntax is recommended before implementing infoboxes using these techniques.
 * --Marknew 08:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's kind of redundant I think: the whole point of the seperate template was to be a place for people to go to get experience with advanced template syntax. I'm not rejecting it entirely, I'll wait and see if anyone else chimes in (other than Netoholic and Trodel), but it just doesn't seem like we should be warning people away from learning more complicated syntax. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Help?
Not sure if this is on-topic but I tried to use Template:Infobox on another wiki and it doesn't work at all. I copied over some of the supporting templates as well. Could I trouble anybody to tell me what I've done wrong? See it here... Takipedia:Template:Infobox. Thanks, The Crow 17:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You also need to define Template:Qif (just copy and paste the code from this site). However, if you don't want conditional rows (hidden when there is no data entered), then you can just remove the Data 4 and Data 5 lines from the infobox code. --Marknew 17:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There are a number of problems. The 'infobox bordered' class is not defined on that Wiki, the 'noinclude' and 'includeonly' tags don't seem to be recognized, and conditional parameters do not work. Any parameter with a pipe ('|') is evaluated as text. Most likely the Wiki is using an older version of MediaWiki software which doesn't support conditional parameters. This will prevent any sort of conditional text template from working. --CBDunkerson 17:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks to whoever fixed it up (guessing it was CBDunkerson). It is MW version 1.4.3, is that new enough to support conditionals?  Also, where and how do I define the 'infobox bordered' class?  The Crow 20:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately conditional parameters were implemented in MW version 1.6. The various 'infobox' classes for Wikipedia are defined at MediaWiki:Common.css. They could be done at the CSS page for each 'skin' (MediaWiki:Monobook.css and such), but anything defined at 'common.css' applies to all skins. --CBDunkerson 20:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not so unfortunate, at least I have a reason for the behavior, a way to fix it, and a good excuse to upgrade. I'll try it.  I am a little concerned as I had already swiped MediaWiki:Common.css so I think the absence of 'infobox bordered' shouldn't have been a problem, yet you say it was... is there more to installing Common.css than just replacing my existing one, or can 1.4.3 just not handle this class no matter what?   The Crow
 * The usage of Common.css isn't in the stable MediaWiki versions, it's only on the pre-alpha 1.6 used on Wikipedia, just like the default parameter ability. You'd have to put the code in Monobook.css and the other skins. -- Netoholic @ 05:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I tried pasting the code into my own wiki here, but the borders and background aren't showing up right. I dug into the page here and found that it was calling the infobox style class, which mysteriously is not in the commonPrint.css stylesheet. Anyway, I found the style definitions on Mediawiki and pasted them into the commonPrint.css stylesheet on my own site, but it's still not working. The only difference I'm noticing is that the wikipedia pages are calling commonPrint.css?11, while mine is calling commonPrint.css?9. Is this the problem? If so, how do I change that? If not...? thanks, matt
 * Ah, problem solved. I hadn't copied the infobox class definitions to my monobook/main.css stylesheet. --matt

Okay, I tried using these on mine too, but Template:Qif is pretty much not used anymore, so I'm even more lost. And I can't seem to swipe the css pages without being labeled a link spammer for some reason. Sana Jisushi 05:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Protected
I have protected this page until an actual compromise can be reached so the edit warring can stop. Please talk nicely among yourselves to work something out. Jtkiefer T  08:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Compromise
As stated well above, the compromise was to move the complex code to Template:Infobox Conditionals. I see absolutely no reason for us to abandon that. -- Netoholic @ 08:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. So why did Trodel and you abandon it? —Locke Cole • t • c 08:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * (I'm not sure how to phrase this well, so here goes...) What the fuck are you talking about?  You're the only one re-inserting the complex code into this template. -- Netoholic @ 08:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Please mind your civility. After seeing the compromise reverted twice (once by Trodel, and then immediately by you), it became blindly obvious to even the most optimistic that you and Trodel had zero intention of abiding by the compromise people agreed to here. As the compromise was gone, so also was any "cease fire" regarding the allegedly complicated code from being in the page. (And if you're going to revert to your "favored" version, I'll revert to my "favored" version; the one with the conditional examples in THIS template and not shuffled off to another template to be lost by anyone really interested in learning how to do it). —Locke Cole • t • c 09:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Stacking and aligning multiple template boxes
Editors of Saint Louis, Missouri would like to use Template:Quotebox to place directly under Template:Infobox City, and I've tried several ways to accomplish this, to no avail. How is it done (if it is possible)? Alternatively, it could be placed inside city infobox, but I'm not sure that is possible or desirable, or how to do it, if it is. Evolauxia 09:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It is possible by adding a style "clear: right;" to the quotebox; unfortunately, doing so hides the "edit" link to the History section underneath the city's infobox --Millbrooky 05:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * We auto people have been using an invisible table for this. See Jeep Wrangler for an example using Template:Infobox Automobile and Template:Infobox Automobile generation and not messing up the edit links.  Note that if anything happens to fall under another thing on the right and intrudes on a heading, the edit boxes start stacking up.  So you have to be careful beyond templates.  You could always use  but I hate that...  --SFoskett 16:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Unprotect?
If there are no objections I will unprotect this page so that it may be converted to the new 'built in' ParserFunctions method of performing conditionals. I think at that point we can also delete Template:Infobox Conditionals as redundant. --CBDunkerson 22:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Conditionals
Template:Infobox Conditionals has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Marknew 08:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Listed on deletion review, because the premise of the Tfd is no longer true (it was "only" redirected and not deleted, nevertheless the Tfd was invalidated by later events here). --&#160;Omniplex 20:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll
I restored protection on the page because there is apparently still a dispute about what it should contain. Let's see what the general consensus of opinions is. --CBDunkerson 20:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Please state your preference:


 * Basic Only
 * The 'Template:Infobox' page should be for very basic infobox design only. It can include table markup and single level optional parameter evaluation, but no other features. Other infobox features may or may not be discussed in sub-pages such as Template:Infobox Conditionals.


 * Common Features
 * The 'Template:Infobox' page should provide examples of common features that are likely to be used in many future infoboxes. This can include ParserFunctions and whatever other methodologies are frequently used in infoboxes.
 * This should definitely document  at a minimum, otherwise we'll end up with stuff like the Mtnbox series of templates (see WP:MFD/QIF). —Locke Cole • t • c 21:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Per Locke Cole. It is better to construct one adaptable template per subject area than several templates that must be called in a certain order. — TKD::Talk 07:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Other
 * Please describe what you think the page should contain.

Alternative text for images
I want to add an "alt text" parameter for infobox images, but I'm not sure of the syntax. Is

going to do it? I want it to use the "alt text" if specified, failing that the "caption", failing that the article name. (In most cases, there is no reason for the image to have a caption, or any alt text beyond the article name.) —wwoods 20:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Help with Infobox template
I hope this is the right place to put this. I have a wiki and I tried to add the infbox, but this is what happens when I try? http://www.akussapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Infobox Could someone please tell me what I'm doing wrong? Thanx a bunch!
 * This template is not an actual usable 'infobox', but rather an example of how infoboxes are built. See Category:Infobox templates for various usable infoboxes or for a customizable single infobox. That said, the reason this box does not display the same way on your wiki is due to CSS definitions. For example, the first line references a CSS class called 'infobox bordered'... which is defined at MediaWiki:Common.css. If you don't have the same CSS class definition on your wiki then it will not display the same way there. --CBD 17:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

titling
There have been many issues with the generic format of a title outside the actual infobox, both in terms of styling and, more importantly, readability. Many browsers (including mine) have a tendency to allow the infobox to overlap the title, in particular when the title wraps onto a second line or is in a larger font. Due to the relatively widespread nature of this issue, many individual infoboxes have made a simple change to the script so that the title is incorporated within the infobox itself. There are hundreds of examples, but infobox Country, Infobox City, Infobox band spring to mind. When incorporated into the infobox as in these examples, the wrap/overlap issue ceases to be a problem.

To cut a long story short, I would like to suggest implementing this minor edit in this, the root infobox template, so that there can be a standard that definitely renders correctly for all Wikipedia users. Bearing in mind, of course, that this is not actually changing anything of substance, but using a simple solution to solve a fairly widespread problem.

Basically, in standardisation with the above and tonnes of other infobox templates (that have reliable viewing properties!), I'd suggest the following opening lines of script, to produce the below:

{| class="infobox bordered" style="width: 25em; text-align: left; font-size: 90%;" ! Data 1: ...
 * colspan="2" style="text-align:center; font-size: larger;" | 
 * colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" | [[Image:|300px| ]]
 * colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" | [[Image:|300px| ]]
 * colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" | [[Image:|300px| ]]

Given its implementation in many templates, it already has some degree of support, but in order to tackle this issue properly it should really be tackled from the top downward.  DJR  ( T ) 00:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have made the edit above based on no dissenting opinions. Obviously it's perpetually open for discussion, being a wiki and all that...  DJR  ( T ) 23:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I wonder if anyone has a technical solution to the problem that might be hard-coded to fix all the other infoboxes using the out-of-box style? MRSC 08:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Opera
The infoboxes aren't showing up correctly in opera, since a couple of hours ago. Maybe it's just my computer, but if someone could check this out, I'd appreciate it. - Peregrinefisher 22:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Middle of the Road
So the second or third info box up there shows Data 1: in a huge collumn and the smaller Data1 in a small collumn. Is there anyway to get each the collumns at 50%? Danielfolsom 03:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki for Interlingua
editprotected Dear administrator, please add the following interwiki:

ia:Patrono:Infobox

Thank you in advance, Julian Mendez 08:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Also this one,

zh-yue:Template:明細

Thanks a lot. &mdash; HenryLi (Talk) 16:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Geo microformat
As used in this edit, this template has the necessary decimal values for longitude and latitude, with a negative number for the Westing, as required by the Geo microformat. How could the relevant mark-up (which I'd be happy to describe) be added? Andy Mabbett 18:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Usage example does not match actual template code
editprotected Could an admin fix this? The example code in the Template:Infobox section does not incorporate the changes as described in the titling section of this discussion above. Threephi 12:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What is the purpose of repeating the code of the infobox as instructions? It's a maintenance nightmare as this shows. Shouldn't the instructions say to just copy the source of the template? CMummert · talk 16:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The purpose is ease-of-use. This being the root example of 'infobox' and not necessarily intended for direct use in a page, many will visit this template seeking example code on which to base their own original infobox. The full source includes many non-code elements. Therefore having the useful code readily accessible and accurate in a Usage section is a critical part of the purpose of this template. I would think that 'nightmare' is a bit of an exaggeration; all that is needed is a bit of maintenance when the code itself changes, which as the page history shows, isn't that frequently. --Threephi 19:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In that case, why not just put the "useful code" in the documentation section and not actually make it a "template"? But I don't really agree that it is difficult to just copy the right part of the source from the source itself. We're talking about someone who is trying to create their own template here - if they can't rob source from other templates they aren't ready to start. CMummert · talk 23:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it's not that difficult, but this template might very well be one of the first if not the very first that a new editor tries to copy. If I take your meaning right, you are arguing for 1) removal of the usage section entirely, or 2) deletion of this template. Both are valid subjects for discussion although I disagree on both counts. --Threephi 02:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I reworded to usage section to be very clear about how to get the source of the template. CMummert · talk 14:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

use on other wikimedia sites
if we are running our own wikimedia wiki, can we use the code for the the infobox on our wiki? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.101.224.204 (talk) 08:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Top-margin tweak
Could we add a top margin in the style, in order to keep infoboxes from interfering with disambig notices and other templates? Such as in Ottawa. I've tried a trial implementation in Template:Infobox comic strip; which has fixed the look of articles like Garfield. - RoyBoy 800 02:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Tableless?
Does anyone know if there is movement anywhere in the Wikimedia world to move to Tableless web design? Vagary 02:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Tableless design does not preclude using tables for actual tabular information - just for page layout (and wikipedia already doesn't in most cases) --Random832 03:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Other wikimedia
How would an infobox be used on another wikimedia? I tryed just using this, but it isn't formatted correctly. I think it probably has to do with the part about "class="infobox bordered"" --209.159.98.1 19:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll second this! Trying to use this on my new mediawiki site as well, and the formatting isn't correct. Do I need to include the "infobox" class somehow? Can someone point me in the right direction? Thanks! -- 216.99.65.63 13:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

See MediaWiki:Common.css. You will have a similar CSS on your own wiki. You can copy and paste parts (or all) of that to yours. That should make your infoboxes pop up as you want. Be sure to shift+refresh your pages after updating that CSS (otherwise your browser will use its cached version). --TedPavlic 15:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

So what exactly do you have to do? I've installed MediaWiki:Common.css and installed the ParserFunctions extension and it still doesn't work.. any other extensions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.201.212 (talk) 07:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Padding
I have suggested adding vertical padding to Template:Infobox Person. Please comment at Template talk:Infobox Person, as this may later be extended to other infoboxes. Superm401 - Talk 05:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

How to hide unuse fields?
Please respond at Template talk:Infobox Indian Political Party. --Soman (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to repurpose this template
There's been some discussion on the enwiki mailing list about creating a standardized meta-template for infobox creation, in the same general manner as is done with navboxes by navbox. This template title would seem to be the perfect one to use, and I note that this template is not currently used for much - the few places that do transclude it appear to be transcluding it in error. So, I've whipped up a basic meta-template to replace it with that can be found here: User:Bryan Derksen/Template sandbox. If there are no objections I'll clean up the erroneous transclusions of this template, archive the talk page, and move over the new code for use and further development. Bryan Derksen (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There. I've only put in a maximum of 20 rows at the moment, but since infoboxes often have more rows than that I'll add more later. I just figured I should start out small to make it easier to fine-tune the formatting and styling and such. I'm field-testing the template at Template:Infobox crater data. Bryan Derksen (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's some excellent work you have done! This template has greatly improved the code and appearance of Template:Infobox public transit (and other infoboxes). --Kildor (talk) 08:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Infoboxes tend to be a rather diverse bunch of templates, I hope I struck a good balance between standardization and customizability. There have been a few infoboxes I've come across that this metatemplate still can't handle, but I suppose a few hand-crafted exceptions are no big deal at this point. :) Bryan Derksen (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * FWIW, and I'm really late to this, but the original intent of this template wasn't to actually do anything. It was educational in that it allowed editors new to templates and their syntax to see a very simple template that demonstrated many of the common features people usually try to implement on their own. Anyways, there's the historical view as I remember it. Anyways, it's unfortunate that this template got taken over for another purpose. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Tnavbar
I've seen view/talk/edit navbars a million times on other templates, and I understand that they mean v/t/e the template, but my expectation on seeing the new Infobox software license at BSD licenses was that clicking on "edit" would open up the article's infobox for editting, just like clicking on a section's "[edit]" link. In fact, I pressed it to make a change and was surprised when the source for Infobox software license appeared! I think the difference from other v/t/e templates is that in the case of an infobox, the "content" is in the article, not in the template. I know we can't make the v/t/e links open up the infobox as defined in the article, so I think the navbar should be removed. RossPatterson (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * How about if instead of "this box: " it was labeled with something like "this template: "? I'm not really wedded to the inclusion of a navbar, but it still seems like a handy thing to have. Bryan Derksen (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Or, alternately, I could add a parameter to enable/disable the display of the tnavbar on any given infobox. That way those that it's useful for could still have it. Bryan Derksen (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it would be nice to have a enable/disable parameter for the tnavbar. And perhaps it would be better to have it disabled as default. In most instances, the infobox content is located in the article rather than in the template, and editing the infobox makes no sense for most Wikipedia readers/editors. I also think that the tnavbar would do better in mini-format at the title bar, as in navbox. --Kildor (talk) 08:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I had the tnavbar there originally, but it had some significant problems. It caused the title text to be shifted off-center and it isn't compatible with infoboxes that use only the "title" parameter (it only worked when placed inside the table, not in the caption). Since the existing infoboxes I've come across with tnavbars generally had them at the bottom, I figured making that a standard made sense. Bryan Derksen (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There, I just reverted Infobox/sandbox back to an old version where the v/d/e links were at the top in the "above" cell. You can see the off-centeredness of the title that results in the little example I've stuck to the right. I think if there were a show/hide link on the other side that'd balance it out, but I don't know how to add that offhand and didn't consider it as important to implement in infoboxes as it is in navboxes. I suppose I could tinker around with it some more, but not for a little while - I've spent way more time on Wikipedia in recent weeks than I can actually spare. :) Bryan Derksen (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've made the tnavbar optional. Simply omit the "name" parameter and it won't be displayed. That means all the existing infoboxes will still have it, since the name parameter was mandatory until this point, but if you've got an infobox you want to take it off of just remove the parameter. Bryan Derksen (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good solution! And as far as I am concerned, there is no need to spend time to move the v/d/e to title bar. I am happy to have the option to turn the v/d/e links off... --Kildor (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Label background request
This template looks like a boon. Nice work! Just one request, though. The "labels" on virtually all the already-existing infoboxes I've seen so far appear to use background:transparent rather than Infobox's current default background:#ddf, so it would seem to make sense to set that default to background:transparent as well. Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. The shading is pretty offputting and templates have gradually been migrating away from gratuitous use of colour. The defaults really need to reflect the state of the art in how infoboxen are presenting themselves before I'd have a go at migrating the ones I've been maintaining for a while. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * For the time being, I'm including "background:transparent;" in the labelstyles. Hopefully, though, the editprotected I've just added might prompt some action. Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I simply copied the default colors from navbox when I first set this up. Personally, I don't think the shaded background is gratuitous. When the background is the same as the body of the table I often find it difficult to tell where one row ends and the next row begins, especially in infoboxes where the data cells are multi-line and there's a lot of space between the label text and the data text. Is there someplace more centralized for discussing global stylistic concerns like this? I didn't find one last time I went looking, closest seemed to be WikiProject Infoboxes and they specifically disclaim being a place for infobox standardisation. Bryan Derksen (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ❌ Sounds like an uncontroversial change but, as I said below, no admin will touch that with a bargepole unless they know or are told exactly what needs to be changed. If you copy the code to a sandbox, change it however you need and then come back here and say "copy the code from this permalink", I'll be happy to oblige. Happy‑melon 22:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, although the original description seems clear to me (to paraphrase, "set the default bacground for labels to transparent"). Infoboxes aren't navboxes, so perhaps this is san area where copying the code from Navbox verbatim wasn't such a good idea. If WikiProject Infoboxes isn't the place to discuss/clarify default settings, then I don't know where else would be! Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this is one I could have done but which I didn't do because I opposed it. Not strenuously, but I think this is something that common practice gets wrong and navbox gets right. I suppose we could discuss it here, this may well be the best place for it since nobody seems to know of a better one. Bryan Derksen (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel the default setting for the label background ought to be "transparent" as that's how it looks across virtually all the infoboxes I've seen so far (something like 99%). Setting it to be transparent doesn't mean it can't be set differently from one infobox to the next, thanks to the labelstyle parameter. If the consensus was to use color, I reckon I should've seen far more than 1% of infoboxes doing so...? Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason it's so prevalent might also be due to the fact that it's easier to leave the backgrounds blank when hand-crafting a table from scratch. :) I'm kind of wary about trying to figure out consensus from second-hand things like existing hand-crafted infobox tables (granted, most of them are transparent) and navbox (I presume navbox's style has seen a massive amount of debate but it's not in exactly the same role here). I'd rather see more people chime in, but since there's no pre-existing place for discussing this particular matter I'm not sure how to get more eyes in on this. A couple of ideas come to mind:
 * Canvas a couple of related places calling for input; manual of style talk pages, the navbox talk page, maybe some noticeboards.
 * Use default-style infoboxes in a bunch of prominent places so that lots of people will form an angry mob and come over here to "set things right" (with "right" being determined by whatever consensus they come up with). I'm only half serious with this one, but it may bear some thought - there's nothing that gets people more interested in correcting something than being clearly wrong about it. The downside is that it may be interpreted as violating WP:POINT. :)
 * I suppose if it's two-to-one in favor of transparent backgrounds right now we could call that a weak consensus and go with transparent defaults until further discussion can be had at some later date. I've suffered worse traumas on Wikipedia before and survived. Bryan Derksen (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I prefer the current color/layout, so I guess it is two-two now... :) --Kildor (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Another approach is to keep the status quo until any more people come knocking. As Infobox finds more use – which I think it should! – then more people will be given the chance to notice and respond to its defaults. In the meantime, to keep the status quo of the infoboxes I convert to use it, I'm including "background:transparent" in the labelstyle. Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've put out a request for more input at Template talk:Navbox, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (infoboxes). I tried to make my requests non-biased-sounding, and if anyone knows of good hangouts for template-editors and infobox-editors who might be interested in participating by all means invite more in. Bryan Derksen (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems like you have changed the default background color to transparent anyway. But now when I see the result, I am changing my mind. It does look better with transparent background. --Kildor (talk) 11:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

item... as alternative to label...
Another request: Please add itemstyle and itemN as alternatives to labelstyle and labelN as I reckon they can be thought of as either. Thanks. Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What is the purpose of an "item" parameter? Is it simply another name for label, or should it have some different meaning and implementation? --Kildor (talk) 08:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Simply an alternative (part of a) name for "label". So I'm imagining the code would use syntax like {{{item1|{{{label1|}}}}} etc. Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but I still not understand. What is the point having an alternative name, if it only affects how the code is written? --Kildor (talk) 10:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no point. We should aim to keep syntax as consistent as possible, and this would not be a good change. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I get the picture. Sorry not to've communicated my intentions more clearly. The change would have no effect on consistency (typos notwithstanding). Sardanaphalus (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The consistency being referred to is the naming of the parameters that accomplish particular tasks, so having two different names for a parameter that accomplishes the exact same task would indeed be inconsistent. I'm also thinking that the parameter name "item" is itself less clear on its meaning - it seems to me that it could just as easily mean the data associated with the item rather than the label for that data. Bryan Derksen (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Accommodating an alternative coloration scheme
Would it be sufficiently straightforward/worthwhile to amend the template to accommodate a coloration scheme such as here? (Reminds me of the Navbox oddstyle and evenstyle.) Sardanaphalus (talk) 03:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I pondered how to do that when I first started setting this up and it's not as easy as it might seem, since with infoboxes rows are very often optional. I can't think of an easy way to determine which rows are "even" and which are "odd" when any given row may or may not be present in the infobox displayed in the article. I'm not familiar with the deeper intricacies of parser functions, though, so there may be techniques I'm unaware of that would simplify things. Bryan Derksen (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ❌ I'm not touching that (and neither will anyone else ) unless you can say exactly what needs to be changed!  Happy‑melon 22:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd love to do it, mind you. I just don't know how. :) Bryan Derksen (talk) 08:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Understood. When I pass by Template:Infobox Lunar crater again, I'll try converting it to an Infobox without the previous color scheme and see if/when anyone reacts. Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You might want to take a look at Infobox crater data when you do. I created that one for use both in cases where there wasn't a specialized infobox template for a crater on a particular body and for use as a meta-template when defining other crater infobox templates (MarsGeo-Crater, Mercury crater data, Venus crater data). I did it a while ago though so it may need refinements. Bryan Derksen (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

More label-data entries needed, please
Hi. I've converted a template to Infobox but it has (wait for it) 55 possible label-data entries, so would someone with access to the code please increase the number of available of label-data entries from 40 to (say) 60. Thanks. Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ I've increased the limit to 60. I'm sure at some point the parser police will come for me, but we don't seem to be hitting any limits yet. :) Bryan Derksen (talk) 05:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Hopefully the parser police won't be stirred as I can't image many infoboxes with as many possibilities. Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Take a deep breath
I spoke too soon. I'm now working a merged version of two templates (Template:Infobox Airliner accident and Template:Infobox Mid-air accident) that is going to need at least 67 label-data entries. Would pushing the number implemented here to 75 or 80 be too high? Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see any reason why not, I've just never done anything with quite so many #if:s before. My comment about parser police was mostly tongue in cheek. :) Make sure to post here if you encounter any strange effects from using that many rows, though, just in case. Bryan Derksen (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, since you've been making a lot of template edit requests and you seem like a sane and capable person who's really into infoboxes, would you like me to switch this template to semi-protection so you can tinker with it yourself? I realize that it may mean labels will switch to background:transparent; by default and this will cause me a brief moment of pain as my soul leaves my body, but I don't want to be seen as some sort of monster gatekeeper imposing his will on Wikipedia. I'll still argue the case for shading in talk, of course. (side note: I've been using background:inherit; when these situations arise instead of background:transparent, I'm not sure if there's any significant difference but it might be worth a look through the CSS docs to see if there is.) Bryan Derksen (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for boosting the label-data number again and offering to ease the template's protection. I'm probably tempting fate, but I don't imagine I'll find myself requesting anything more in the near future, so it's probably best to keep the template safe. Thanks for the thought, though. I'll post some thoughts about the default background above. Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, new code without hard-coded backgrounds
Tidied the whitespace up a bit and dropped some excessive styles (such as some hard-coded italic). This code is basically the same as is used in infobox Game, infobox computer and most other infoboxen I've worked on.

This drops the hard-coded blue fields and some other unnecessary styling.

Copied here for a quick visual. The code is available at User:Thumperward/infobox.

There are no semantic changes to the old code, just some style tweaks and addition of whitespace to make it easier to read. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Which styling does it change, exactly? There's not many people participating in the discussion yet, but of the ones that are there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus on whether to color the the default label backgrounds. Also, all the text styling of the existing infobox can be overridden with style parameters as well (there isn't anything "hard-coded", simply default), so IMO it's fine to include some text styling in order to increase the consistency across infoboxes. Bryan Derksen (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It makes minor edits to the cell padding, title font size and such, which can be quickly compared by looking at the top three rown and comparing it to the existing template. Internally, the only change it makes from the current version (other than whitespace) is to remove a hardcoded  from every single row. If individual projects want to add a colour (like WikiProject Comics) then they need only add one attribute to their own templates (and indeed have already done so). Meanwhile, it means that projects which don't want the colour don't need to go overriding it. As for consistency, I'd argue that infoboxen have, over time, been moving to using less colour and that lots of high-profile ones have already phased it out. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The other tweaks to styling mostly look fine to me, but the default width doesn't match the guidelines at Manual of Style (infoboxes). And I still think that without any visual markers to show where each label begins and ends it makes it harder to visually associate which label goes with which bit of data. I'd really like to see more of a discussion on that rather than simply going with what's popular simply because it's popular. Bryan Derksen (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm happy for the width to be tweaked. As for the aesthetics, well, all I can do is request the change and point out that the trend has (until this template's revival) been away from colour. WikiProject Video games, for instance, moved to a colourless version for all their infoboxen after extensive discussion at the end of January. Unlike navbox, the fields in question are not so long that visual distinction between them is usually difficult (at a width of less than 30 ems, and with what are usually key-value pairs). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not going to fight to the death over it. I was about to switch to colorless a few days back when Kildor showed up and ruined everything by agreeing with my own opinion. :) I've put out a call to a couple of other talk pages to get some more participants in the discussion, but if nothing else crops up I guess I'll start implementing style changes and see if that causes any complaints. Nothing stylistic is actually hard-coded with the current design so there's no rush on any of this. Bryan Derksen (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ❌ for now, as consensus does not appear to be forthcoming. If more discussion occurs and a consensus emerges to change, readd the template. Happy‑melon 14:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Header and data can coexist
I just took a close look at this new meta-template. I was surprised when the docs said: "When a header is defined on the same row as a data cell the header takes precedence." From what I see in the current code that means that if a header is input for a row then the label and data is not shown. I find that counter intuitive. I was expecting to be able to specify header1, label1 and data1 at the same time, and thus see header1 above label1+data1.

All we have to do to make that happen is to disconnect the #if statement for the header. That is, put the label and data stuff after it, instead of inside it. Like this:

--David Göthberg (talk) 01:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Counterintuitive" is in the eye of the beholder. :) The reason I did it this way is because this way each row in the infobox has its own number, and I felt it would be more confusing to have two "row 8"s than it would to have items overriding each other when placed on the same row. I can your view too, though, so I don't know which is better. Fortunately the existing uses of the template will be backward-compatible if at some point we change over to allow headers and labels with the same row number, though switching back again would be less so. Bryan Derksen (talk) 03:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, "counterintuitive" is in the eye of the beholder, that's why I changed from the word "illogical" just seconds before I saved. :)
 * And right, this change should be possible to do without changing existing boxes. But changing back will then not be possible. But I see no reason why one would want to change back. After all, if headers and labels would be allowed on the same row then infoboxes could use a lower number of rows.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 08:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There'd still be the same number of rows, it only looks like there'd be fewer because some of them would share the same row number. That's the bit that I'd have conceptual trouble with, the sharing of row numbers between adjacent rows. Most infoboxes only have two or three headers at most so IMO the practical effect on the size of the template will be minimal. Bryan Derksen (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

So, what does everyone else think? There are starting to be a fair number of people who are using this template, so if the current arrangement is unintuitive by all means toss in your !vote. I'm probably too close to the design myself to be certain about what "makes sense" in general usage so I welcome third-party input like this (plus, I'm not the template's guardian monster so I shouldn't say "third-party" there :). I just inadvertently hid a data row with a header myself while doing an infobox conversion so I'm open to being swayed. Bryan Derksen (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Help please
Someone please point out why the caption in the Infobox-based template below isn't wrapping. I'm guessing it's something I'm overlooking, but can't see what.

[defunct link removed]

Thanks. Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Your  parameter had some trailing syntax cruft, presumably from your copy-paste. I've fixed it in your sandboxed template. For what it's worth, you'd have a much easier time if you weren't micro-managing the template style by overriding things everywhere. The simpler the markup, the easier it is to debug (and work on in the future), and the more consistent infoboxen are across Wikipedia. Ditto with the unnecessary font size overrides. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for spotting the copy-paste error. Sorry you don't like the "micro-managing", but unfortunately many of the current default sizes/positions/etc yield wide gaps between (wrapped) lines, questionable font-size relationships, etc. Maybe someday what might currently look like "micro-management" might become default. Thanks again. Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Font-size discrepancies between browsers
I just noticed that the font-size set for the .infobox class has discrepancies between at least IE and Firefox. See the screenshots to the right. The cause is that the font-size has been set to 90% in common.css; a value that dangles between two rendition the two browssers, who obviously have a slightly different base font-size. I want to get rid of this dicrepancy by adjusting it to a value that produces the same font-size. However, I would need to know what the intended font-size was to begin with; the small (Firefox) or the bigger (IE) rendition.

For comparison, .navbox has a base font-size of 88%, which renders the small font on both IE and Firefox. And for reference, see User:Edokter/fonttest to see how the different sizes render in your browser (play with your browser's font-size). — Edokter  •  Talk  • 14:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I just used the font-size value that was here in the "example" code that this template used to contain, as seen in this revision: . The edit that changed the font size to that is this one, from September 25 2006: . It mentions that the edit was done "per talk page", looking in the old archives I think this is the discussion that's being referred to: Template talk:Infobox/Archive 1. Ironically, the change was done "so that there can be a standard that definitely renders correctly for all Wikipedia users". Apparently the previous value of 95% caused some inconsistencies with boxes overlapping things and wrapping words. I have no idea when and where the css pages were edited similarly, you'd probably know better where to find that information than me, but considering that there was practically no discussion of the issue here I don't imagine there'd be any really solid reason not to tweak the font size to 88% if that makes things more consistent across major browsers. A 2% font size change shouldn't be all that big a deal. Bryan Derksen (talk) 05:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 2% may not seem much, but the difference to IE users will be clearly visible as demonstrated to the right. If there are no further objection though, I'll change it to 88% in the near future. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 15:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Nested Infobox
Hi again. In the opposite, how do I (1) prevent the gap between " 1" and the start of Infobox 2, (2) remove the padding/margin to the left of Infobox 2?

}} Thanks. Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Code
 * data1 = 1
 * data2 =


 * (1) I fixed the template to remove any extranious line-breaks.
 * (2) Add  to the 2nd infobox's bodystyle.
 * — Edokter  •  Talk  • 14:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

}}
 * Code
 * data1 = 1
 * data2 =
 * Thanks, Edokter! Sardanaphalus (talk) 07:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

KISS
system provides uniformity and makes infobox creation easier, but is it necessary for all infoboxes, and does it make the big picture overly-complex? !! time= 23:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC) }} Regarding this conversion to use Template:infobox, and the over all purpose of this template, I don't see the point. Doesn't this make it harder to edit the infobox, with out any real benefit? It would be far easier to just use normal wikitable syntax and follow some kind of guideline for helping to standardize the template. And if anyone is wondering, I feel the same way about Navbox, though I think the argument is stronger for infoboxes. -- Ned Scott 05:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And while my understanding of CSS is limited, I thought that's what the table class was for, this kind of common formatting. -- Ned Scott 06:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I support Infobox because for me it usually makes seeing the wood for the trees easier. In other words, to take the previous and current Infobox Film's code, the current version is much more user-friendly to me because virtually all the repeating  are gone. Ditto Navbox (and variants) with navboxes. So, more a case of Infobox (and Navboxes) MakingISS. Sardanaphalus (talk) 07:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat what I said on Template talk:Infobox Film: I still think it makes things needlessly complicated in the big picture. Infobox film doesn't have to be "easy to edit" for every single editor, and it's protected from editing anyways. There's tons of editors who easily understand how to edit the template, if an edit is needed. This used to be one of the very few templates that one could even copy onto another installation of MediaWiki without making any modifications, because it was a well crafted template.
 * We're supposed to be dealing with parser functions, and we're supposed to be making hand-crafted changes (when necessary). Everything else can be covered in the infobox CSS class.
 * This does more to limit future options and possible custom considerations, because we wouldn't be able to have any unique code. This is fixing a non-existent problem. I insist on reverting back to the previous code until we can discuss this some more. -- Ned Scott 23:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow... well, let's see what your request for comment brings. I don't think Infobox is about fixing a non-existent problem, but about making infoboxes easier to create and maintain. I think, for instance, I'm less likely to mislay or miscount "}}"s and "}}}"s, etc. Sardanaphalus (talk) 08:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If an infobox needs unique code, then by all means hand-craft an infobox for it. There are still lots of navboxes out there that have hand-crafted code to accomplish things that the navbox template can't yet handle. However, in most of the cases I've seen, the "unique" code in infoboxes simply serves to steepen the learning curve for any new editor who comes along and doesn't accomplish anything that this template can't accomplish in a more standardized manner. Bryan Derksen (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's possible for pure-template markup to be unmaintainable gunk just like with wikitables, admittedly. However, not only does using infobox consistently help to make infoboxen across the project look and behave similarly, it also leads to cleaner code when done right. It can be seen from the example code that almost all of the trimmed material is syntactical cruft. I'd also point out that similar movements have taken place across the board (navbox, userbox, ambox) and that the trend is clear. As for "future options and possible custom considerations", in my experience it's possible for the generic templates to accomplish (or to be modified to accomplish) basically anything that could reasonably be required from an infobox, and that there's no point in having infinite flexibility just for flexibility's sake. I suppose conversion wholeheartedly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I've come across a number of infoboxes in my travels that have features that can't be easily reproduced with infobox. I've simply left those ones alone. Perhaps in the future infobox will be expanded to handle more; I added on microformat-handling parameters after the fact, for example. Bryan Derksen (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ned, I've noticed that you've been going around and reverting templates away from using infobox without any explanation in either talk pages or edit summaries, and for no readily apparent reasons. I count 28 of these on April 19 alone. This strikes me as being just as disruptive as trying to force infobox on a template that it can't handle in the first place, something I've avoided doing. Could you at least raise specific objections when you do something like that? I see no reason not to simply roll back such unexplained reversions. Bryan Derksen (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I should apologies for that. At first I was only going to go through a few that seemed very obvious (ones that didn't even use any complex coding like parser functions), but got caught up in my own frustration. I'm waiting to get more input from this RfC, and yes, in the future I will try to better explain individual situations. -- Ned Scott 02:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll holding off re-reverting them too, then, at least not without addressing each one in detail to make sure I didn't break anything. I suspect that in a lot of cases where there weren't parser functions used it was because they're tricky for novice templateers to figure out how to use in the first place rather than because they wouldn't be useful. But everyone makes mistakes and I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. Bryan Derksen (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting idea, but of course not one that should be rolled out over all infobox templates. Many infobox templates are quite simple in terms of layout, containing a simple 2-column table and maybe an image (eg. Infobox Film) so I can see no problem there, but for more complicated ones that are under constant development (eg. Infobox Settlement) I would be against such a change since its content is far more complex than this setup can allow in a manageable way. 52 Pickup  (deal)  11:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the very simple ones should be left alone (no parsers, etc), but we should definitely strive for some visual consistency. I guess it does make sense for templates like the Film one to be converted, because they're far from simple, but at the same time they're protected. I guess I can't say I have a strong opinion on those ones like I did before, having thought more about it (being, ones that are complex, but protected). This does seem to be a very nice tool for making and maintaining infoboxes, and there probably won't be much of an issue. -- Ned Scott 06:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Multiple images?
So infobox software has both the logo and screenshot attributes. Can we get image1/caption1 etc. to accommodate this? Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but where abouts? What code needs to be added where? Happy‑melon 17:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The current code is:

--><!--


 * Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That would produce three image stacked together. Do we actually need multiple images here? You can easily hack image= to include images in the same way. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 19:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd rather not include hacks in individual instances of the template if it can be fixed cleanly upstream. Using additional parameters appears to be the most logical and intuitive way to do it, and would be the smoothest way to move templates like infobox software over to using infobox as far as I can see. Take a look at AbiWord, bash or irssi for the desired effect. Additional captions aren't strictly required here but there's no reason not to offer them just in case. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not really a hack; just use, especially if you don't need the extra captions. That could be done in the templates to be convereted, so I don't really see the need to add extra parameters in this template when it isn't used that often. —  Edokter  •  Talk  • 22:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Alternately, you can use data cells without labels to provide pretty much the same thing as the image cell. Just go  to add another centered image. Bryan Derksen (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * ❌ for now - please establish a consensus for how best to implement this. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 11:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Image captions
The current infobox template does not pass on image caption to the image tags themselves. Meaning that if you put your mouse over the image of Albert Einstein in his article, instead of display the caption from the TITLE field of the image, it says the filename. More seriously, as a result of this, the ALT tag of the images displayed through this template is blank—both incorrect by web standards as well as rendering the image inaccessible and invisible to those who rely on ALT tags.

I don't know enough about template syntax to dare mess with it myself, but surely there is a way to take the caption parameter and pass it into the bit that creates the framed image, without forcing anyone to change how they use the infoboxes? I think it's something that should definitely be done ASAP. --Fastfission (talk) 00:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no easy way (or one at all) to do this automatically; The given image paramter expects a full image syntax, including the and , so there is no way of injecting the caption into this. As a workaround, you can enter the caption in both the image and caption parameter. —  Edokter  •  Talk  • 13:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You could use something like this code snippet:


 * image= [[Image:|]]
 * caption=


 * That would break existing templates horribly; image= was designed to enter the entire images syntax. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 18:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, that code snippet is for calling the infobox template from the specific infobox being converted to use it. So if you're already using the name "image" for your image filename parameter, your template would consist of:


 * And soforth. It's like object-oriented programming, we're overriding the meaning of the "image" parameter using a wrapper that modifies and passes it along to the parent template. I've done this trick with other infoboxes before and it works just fine. Bryan Derksen (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There, I just updated Infobox Scientist to do this - see . If you put your pointer over Albert's picture you get an informative alt text now. Bryan Derksen (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there has been some kind of misunderstanding of web standards. That code in Infobox Scientist means that someone with visual impairment using a screen reader hears the same caption twice. I guess there must be a better approach. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

another style parameter for data-only row
Hello, I'm using this template in Japanese Wikipedia, thanks! (though the two templates differ in very detail) When I use data-only row (data cell without label), often feel another style parameter for data-only rows would be great. For exmaple, when you try to apply this template to Template:Probability distribution, you would probably use data-only rows for image cells and have to code like: Such cases occur quite often because data-only rows and normal data cells usually have different "text-align" style. Can we have a special style parameter for data-only row? --125.201.158.128 (talk) 08:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * datastyle = text-align:left
 * data1 = ...


 * I'm not sure how easy it would be to add such a parameter, offhand, but in this particular case the default already works the way you're requesting. A data cell with a label defaults to left alignment and a data cell with no label defaults to centered alignment. Example:


 * You could also use headers for special row formatting, assuming you weren't using headers as headers already. Bryan Derksen (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for teaching. I haven't noticed that the default already works well since I manually set, which overrides the default.
 * However I still want the new parameter. It will be like:


 * (the name is just an example) is the new parameter. --125.201.3.209 (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Inheriting data from other templates?
So I'm stuck here. The issue is with infobox VG character, which allows for a sub-template in the inuniverse parameter. This sub-template isn't a full table though: just a set of extra rows. This works fine with a hand-crafted table style infobox, but not with infobox. I can see why it doesn't work as-is (the extra data rows are being applied to the wrong template), but can't see that there's a way of fixing this which doesn't require editing every article which uses the feature. Any suggestions? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Image sizing
This currently does not set up image_size a parameter used in many infoboxes. Taking Infobox Film as an example, it currently awkwardly codes for a default as:



Yet there is a simpler coding using px which allows for default values (and corrects for image_size parameter being set values in articles with or without a "px" suffix - i.e. "|image_size=250" and "|image_size=250px"). Minor point, break tag should have no space. Hence a neater coding is:



Davidruben (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2008

Having trouble copying code
When I copy the code from the edit page and paste it into the new template page on my own wiki, I do not yield a working template. I am presented with a page full of "Ifs" and lines, and amidst these is also the infobox.

Any ideas on why this could be? Thanks! 66.174.92.167 (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're seeing the "if"s then that means you need mw:Extension:ParserFunctions installed. There's a chance you might need some other extensions installed as well. A full list of the ones en.wikipedia.org uses can be found at Special:Version. You'll also want to copy Wikipedia:WikiProject Transwiki/MediaWiki:Common.js and Wikipedia:WikiProject Transwiki/MediaWiki:Common.css to your MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css files as well (the first set of links are "clean" Wikipedia copies that should work on other wikis without any problems). Hope that helps. -- Ned Scott 04:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Question
Could some one help me with this??? I created it so that I could tinker around and not have to worry about disrupting this one. I was thinking about adding different things and seeing what people thought and also learning the syntax better, however I have run into a problem with one of my random thoughts. You see, I wanted to make it collapsible, however I don't know the syntax well enough. If anyone could help that would be great, and if you want to leave me a message please do so on my talk page. Thanks,  Cra sh  Underride  22:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Making bodyclass=collapsible look / work right
This would be really handy. I'm not sure where it's going wrong just now, just that it's definitely going wrong. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Installation of Infobox in Mediawiki
I am trying to import some data from wikipedia into my own mediawiki. This data contains the infobox: settlement which doesn't appear correctly. It shows the raw html for everthing in the infobox after the table tag and before the ending table tag, so from <td colspan="2" align="center" to the GNIS number 0829911[2]

I have a hunch that I am missing a template, but when I go to see which templates the page uses, I have them all. I think it could a nested template that I'm missing but I'm not sure which Thanks 68.96.138.80 (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit request
Hi. Please replace the current first line of the code, <pre style="font-size:95%; overflow:auto;">
 * 1) Add a class to whole row, not just the data cell in that row. e.g.
 * 2) Add a class to a data cell, such that, if the data is entered as, the relevant class is  inside the emboldening:   or   but not
 * 3) Add a span around part of a complex code example, such as  in


 * Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 11:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The microformat support that was added to this template was done to allow classes to be added to some of the tags that are "hidden" by the template; the table tag, the td tags, and so forth. If you want to insert spans into table data you can do that directly in whatever template is using this metatemplate. For example, you could have


 * | data1=  


 * in your template and the infobox template should handle that just fine.


 * The template currently doesn't support adding classes to entire rows, I didn't see any examples of that sort of usage back when I was reading through the microformat documentation so I didn't think it was needed. If it's a rare occurrence perhaps it can be hand-crafted for now? Bryan Derksen (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Unfortunately, you missed sevral instances of classes added to whole rows; adding microformats in tables often requires that capability. This was possible in infoboxes, before your changes. How do you suggest that be hand=crafted, where needed? Please will you also answer my points numbered 1, 3 and 4 (with respect to temapltes consturcted using this temaplte, not data entry)? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy Mabbett; Andy Mabbett's contributions 20:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

TBODY
My question about the use of TBODY, asked elsewhere, is particularly relevant to Infoboxes. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 11:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've no experience with the use of tbody, but your intention here looks like it may be a bit too advanced and complex for this template. You may have to custom-craft infoboxes that use those. Bryan Derksen (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Template Airport codes
Please see my request for help with Template Airport codes. Thank you. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 11:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Make Infobox
Does anyone know anything about ? It's used by Infobox UKproperty and, and possibly others. It would seem to duplicate this one, and should perhaps be merged, though it looks like doing so might be complicated. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 21:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There are only three templatespace transclusions (the third is ). It's evidently just a kludgier version of this template, so I'll work on converting the three existing instances tomorrow before taking it to TfD. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There's only one implementation of (Hope and Anchor, Islington) and one of ) (Coulonge Chutes replaced); probably best to just replace, or transclude, then delete them.


 * There was only one implementation of each of and one  ); I've replaced both with better templates. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 23:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've migrated Infobox UKproperty to infobox and nominated the others for deletion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Dual class names not working
It seems that entering  (as sometimes required for the hCard microformat) does not work; it renders a class of "fn" (see ). Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 12:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know where you're getting this from. The HTML output of that page is as follows:  That is the correct output. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't recall what was hapening, but it seems OK now, anyway. Thanks, Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy Mabbett; Andy Mabbett's contributions 20:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding a collapsible section?
I've just created a new generic infobox called Infobox Sportsperson. Is it possible to create a collapsible section using Infobox, such as the "Medal record" section that appears at the bottom of Infobox Swimmer? I would very much like to add this feature to Infobox Sportsperson. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 13:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This can be faked fairly easily:


 * below   =
 * I do appreciate that it would be nice to have a more elegant collapsing method in infobox itself though. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Will add that to the infobox. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 14:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Title outside of box
Can we remove the option to have the title outside of the box? There are reports at Template talk:Infobox Book that it causes wrapping issues with long titles using Konqueror. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see any discussion of that on the linked template talk: what's the section header? If this is true, it should affect every wikitable on the project which uses a title. That doesn't seem like something which has slipped by people. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing support for
I've been heavily involved in converting random wikitable arrangements into infoboxes for some time now, and I never knew about the existence of the parameter until today. Is there really a need for this? It doesn't look as good to me as just sticking a tnavbar directly in the attribute, has an unintuitive name and function and doesn't appear to be widely employed. I think this should just be yanked in the name of simplicity, with editors always having the option of manually adding a navbar if required. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The function is the same as in navbox, but here it is optional. It is also well documented. It shouldn't be removed as many infoboxes now rely on it. And since it's optional, it's not really in the way. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 17:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Span misplaced
editprotected

Not a big issue, but the span in the following section of code is in the wrong place; it needs to be moved inside the if statement for the caption.

[code redacted]

We were getting errors on an external wiki when we imported this due to the lack of Tidy. --Izno (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * has kindly ✅ this. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Subheader
editprotected

Some templates, such as Infobox character, have a subheader to identify the character. Infobox animanga character and Infobox Television episode also uses a subheader for similar reasons. So I am requesting that a subheader be added to the infobox.

Below:

<pre style="overflow:auto">

Add:

<pre style="overflow:auto">

I would also recommend the removal of cellspacing="5" from the table an allow cell spacing to be controlled through CSS via border-spacing instead. --Farix (Talk) 20:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I tried to implement this change, but there are complexities, such as the comment, and thanks for doing the extra step.  I'm just (understandably, I hope) a bit paranoid about making changes to major templates!  --Elonka 01:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How about calling it top instead of subheader? That may be a more clear. --Farix (Talk) 02:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and made the next change, per request at my talkpage. Though if I'm not around, just go ahead and put up another editprotected template, and some other admin may be able to get to it quicker.  :) --Elonka 04:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Three-column version - please test!
Hey folks,

In searching for a way to hack infobox Football biography to use an infobox, I ended up having to add new parameters - and thus was born infobox3cols. This allows for a "data1a" and "data1b" set instead of just "data1" to present two columns of data, so that the club rows in the aforementioned template display properly. This can be rolled into infobox so we don't have to keep two different designs - any thoughts? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Define min-width for left column
This infobox has its left column squashed up by the right column of Type (in Firefox), creating needless whitespace. The following CSS code will fix the issue:

.infobox th { min-width: 6.5em; }

Of course, the number will change from infobox to infobox...is it practical, or even possible, to allow inherited templates to specify their own values? --Tom Edwards (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A better fix is allowing pass-through of the  parameter. I've added this to infobox Software/sandbox; test it by changing the Steam article to use that template, and adding the following line to the code:  . Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That does the business! --Tom Edwards (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So, uh, is this going to go into the template? --Tom Edwards (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You'd need to request it on template talk:infobox Software. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Categories
Should Infoboxes be used to add articles to categories? i.e. should, say, automatically add the articles in which it is used to Category:Spaghetti-knitters? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this is still a grey area. I think in general that auto-categorisation by template is a great idea, but it's somewhat difficult to establish exactly where a transcluded cat is coming from sometimes and I'm not sure that it's recommended. This probably needs a wider forum. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Problems adding reference
Hi

I'm trying to add a reference to the area figure in the Infobox at Turks and Caicos Islands. When I try the usual syntax, for example,



I get a string of gibberish displayed in the infobox, such as


 * Total 417UNIQ537f1d231ef3cc66-ref-0,000,001C-QINU km2 (199th)

What am I doing wrong? 86.133.242.24 (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Nothing, but the area_km2 parameter only accepts numbers, as it is run through various other functions (such as formatnum). You'll have to put the ref somewhere else. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 00:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick reply! Put it somewhere else like where? Do you mean I can insert it somewhere else in the Infobox code and have it associated with the area figure, or is it just not possible to do what I'm trying to do? (If the latter then an enhancement to allow this might be nice if anyone has the inclination.) 86.133.242.24 (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC).


 * Just put it in the article body. There's no real need to add the reference tag to the infobox itself, and everything in the infobox should be covered in the article body already anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Infobox for Lame Duck status?
I wonder if we should have a separate designation for incumbents and outgoing officials (like George W. Bush). I've set up a debate on the topic superlusertc 2008 December 17, 00:20 (UTC)

Should 'Infobox film' use 'Infobox'?
Please see discussion at Template talk:Infobox Film Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Width
Per MOS:INFOBOX, the suggested standard width of an infobox is 25em, yet this template defaults at 22em. If this meta is to be pushed as the standard (as seems to be the case), can this discrepancy be addressed? PC78 (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)