Template talk:Infobox medieval text

Developing an infobox

 * 1) Important to try and define limits as to which articles thw infobox is to appear within.
 * 2) Then to try and define list of parameters that are essential for majority of articles and which might be very useful for a significant minority. Any parameter having only occasional usage probably should not be included.
 * 3) The final task in developing the infobox is to start documenting what the parameters mean (hence "redactor" does not mean anything to me unless I were to look the term up), so that other editors can start to helpout, offer advic, criticise etc.  (Documentation can be started here on talk page, but evenually is best finalised as a subpage to the proposal as /doc)

So of infobox metatemplate used so far, the following 'blank' can be constructed and tested (by editing the section or copy and paste the "Blank" elsewehere and define the parameters). If you click the 'Edit' link below you will see structure set out twice - the example calling of the proposal (shown on right) and the inactive display shown on the left (within   tags)ng) to test out parameters and the infobox (edit this page to try out parameter values below - the duplication within the 'pre' tags is just the inactive left-hand display).

Finally when the infobox is ready to go live, it should be moved (renamed) from List of infoboxes/Proposed/Infobox Medieval text to Template:Infobox Medieval text.

Feel free to ask if you need help. David Ruben Talk 01:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Example area
We need a way to test whether a single template is at all convenient, meaning comprehensive and flexible yet standardised and transparent enough, for a variety of medieval sources (histories, literature (prose and poetry), cartularies, legal texts, handbooks, translations, etc.). So here are couple of further testcases:

Hemming's Cartulary
{{Infobox Medieval text


 * name                = Hemming's Cartulary
 * alternative title(s) = Liber Wigorniensis and Hemming's Cartulary proper
 * image               = File:Hemmingscartfolio121.jpg
 * width               =
 * caption             = Page from Hemming's Cartulary, this is folio 121 of the manuscript


 * author(s)           = Hemming (2nd part)
 * compiled by         = Hemming (2nd part)
 * patron              =
 * dedicated to        =
 * audience            =
 * language            = medieval Latin
 * date                = mostly 996 x 1016 (Liber Wigorniensis); late 11th / early 12th century (2nd part)
 * provenance          = Worcester Cathedral
 * authenticity        = contains some spurious charters
 * first printed edition = 1723 by Thomas Hearne
 * manuscript(s)       = Cotton Tiberius A xiii


 * genre               = Cartulary
 * subject             = Charters of Worcester Cathedral
 * setting             =
 * period covered      =  10th and 11th century
 * personages          = Cnut, William the Conqueror, others

Scope
What's the proposed scope of this? Are we aiming to only cover European Medieval texts or should we put some thought into worrying about Chinese/Japanese/Islamic/etc. texts? So far it looks good to me, although it might be good to see it a poetical example as well as maybe something more dry than Hemming's? Nuremburg? ASC? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been in two minds about this, for practical/technical reasons mostly. I was initially worried that a globally comprehensive template would need a lot of tweaking to suit the needs of other areas amd disciplines, with the potential result that it would take ages before the template could go live, and/or that in the event of further adjustments, articles would constantly need to be brought up to date. So playing it safe and keeping it at Europe doesn't like a bad idea. On the other hand, there may be little that can go wrong when the basic parameters are set so that additional demands merely require additional parameters. Ask the neighbours? It is not however the geographical or cultural scope that has worried me most, but the scope in terms of text types. Cavila (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, the tricky concept of 'medieval' is most commonly employed for or with reference to Europe, but to make things simple, editors may make use of the template if they consider it to be useful elsewhere, or else derive from it a new template specific to their area. Cavila (talk) 06:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Media

 * I'd say written texts or text collections only. The way the template is set up now takes texts (originally) preserved on vellum or papyrus as their vantage point. For runestones, there appears to be this, so we do not need to cover that, and I think we can steer clear of epigraphy in general. For printed books, there is a separate (of somewhat bare) template, but late medieval texts can appear in both formats, written and printed, so that should probably be taken care of somehow. Did I forget about other media/artefacts? Cavila (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And now to add two and two together, this is (partly) covered by Ealdgyth's suggestion to add the first printed edition (see below). Cavila (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Other articles?
We should probably keep in mind that not all texts enjoy the luxury of having their own article space. Some are embedded in an article about their author or compiler and where one work takes centre stage (e.g. "John of Worcester", which hardly deals with his life), one might consider using the template. But anyway, this is more about the prudence of editors using the infobox, not that of editors editing it. Cavila (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hypothetical texts?
There are a number of "supposed" texts that we need to consider also, do we want to cover these? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds interesting. Do you mean hypothetical texts whose influence is thought by some to be demonstrable, but do not survive in any form except possibly in citation or paraphrase, ranging from much of Posidonius' work to less credible cases like Geoffrey of Monmouth's "certain very ancient book" and downright fictional/spurious texts? There's a nice list of fictional books on wiki, though I can't spot any medieval inventions there. Cavila (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the hypotheticals (I put the above up this morning before the caffeine had full effect). Somewhat like the various E, P, etc. texts that are part of biblical studies. I'm NOT a student of manuscripts, so I can't say whether there would be a lot of them or not, but something like those texts that had gained scholarly consensus might need to be covered. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh well, I suppose my own cup of coffee made me cavil at something that was clear from the outset and thoughtful too, being written so early in the morning. No, you're quite right, I'll try to think of something, preferably in conjunction with "manuscript(s)". Cavila (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It just springs to mind that the so-called northern recension of ASC may be a more pertinent example of what you're saying (whether in a separate article or as part of the existing article for ASC). Cavila (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Current location
Do we want to note where it is currently located as well as the first printed versions? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, unless we're talking of inscriptions, the location is usually indicated by the catalogue title of a manuscript (see there), though shorthands for the more famous MSS do not always reflect this. I probably wouldn't be including the editio princeps very often in the infobox myself, but others might want to, especially in order to indicate when a certain text became accessible to the public. In the case of recent discoveries, like the Cornish play Bywnans Ke, this is valuable information. Cavila (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Question
I'd like to insert the option of an alternative title (centred) just below the main one, in place of the area below the image+caption, but I can't get it to work. I tried it with "header" and "header1", but no such luck. Any ideas? Cavila (talk) 11:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed the subheader. Cavila (talk) 11:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Image coding
The image coding is that of the metatemplate Infobox, and it requires full markup of the image reference with the editor having to specify the image width. In general, infoboxes should not be too wide and I would suggest having a default width that more experienced editors can adjust if they wish. imagestyle parameter is messy to code.

Hence I would suggest image takes just the (unlinked) filename, and an optional width parameter set if required, otherwise a default width of 225px applies - coding done along lines of: | image= i.e.     ^if defined,         ^image of ^width ^defined  ^or 225 default

Exampes of this template then being used: | image = file:example.jpg | width = is shown as 225 pixels width | image = file:example.jpg | width = 150 is shown with stated 150 pixel size

The passing of such parameter values to metatemplate would of course need to be checked out, but is it an approach you wish to explore ? David Ruben Talk 22:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds excellent. Cavila (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ... and it works to boot! I guess "image" should not have the initial i capitalised, but that's fixed now. Cavila (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Phew :-) What of current infobox width of 350px? Seems a little wide, especially for anyone viewing on 800x600 screen. I know the parameters might be taking quite a bit of text compared to the medical infoboxes I tend to work with (eg Infobox hospital per example of St Thomas' Hospital with widths set as "22em" or approx 250px ). Guideline of Manual of Style (infoboxes) states: "Standard suggested width of 300 pixels or 25 ems (300px or 25em in CSS)", so perhaps select this 300px vs current 350 ?
 * Then image width would better fill the space with default of 250px rather than the 225px I original gave above (works of course with medical infoboxes size of 250px, but too small on reflection with this wider infobox). David Ruben Talk 00:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 300px (for box width) it is. Cavila (talk) 06:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking good...
Looks pretty good to me. At least I can't think of anything else to add. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I made some further changes and updated the documentation. Perhaps I should add that "state of existence" and "sources" can be a bit ambiguous when a group of texts goes back (partly) to a lost exemplar, as here with ASC. But as these are basically boxes for snappy McInformation, no doubt not everything will be tailormade. I'll just stop worrying and love the infobox (ok, that sounded cheesier than stilton). For the potentially bulky area of MSS, I created a (probably gratuitous) number of optional fields which use the complete width of the box. Deacon pointed out to me that some flexibility might be wished for. I've thought of indenting these fields slightly (for aesthetic reasons), but then I don't think it's technically possible. Anyway, these are quibbles. I'll just await any newer comments, but I expect we should be done here anytime soon. Cavila (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Alrighty, I don't see any serious issues, so it looks like it's time for the template to 'go live'. I'll set up the template based on similar instances such as Template:Infobox Play, with a separate documentation (sub)page for transclusion on the main page. Cavila (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahum, sorry for the neglect. What I ought to have done, in haste or not, is to actually move the page rather than simply copy the whole thing. The edit history is of no importance, but the original page has become obsolete. Can any administrator help us out or should I mark the page for deletion? Cavila (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

✅ at least you copied with the page histories (vs just copy & pasted the text), so seemed simplest to just delete the proposal subpages (not quite the neat "move to go live" but it worked) :-) David Ruben Talk 00:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

One thing...
That would be nice on the main page is a full listing of the stuff but blank so that you can copy-paste it into new articles, without having to wipe out a whole bunch of explanatory stuff. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

✅ David Ruben Talk 00:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * THanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)