Template talk:Infobox nuclear weapons test

Series
Whoever is in charge of this infobox:

The series infobox needs to have the next_test and prev_test changed so the test reads "series', not "test". Alternatively, these could be made optional and two new optional lines, say, "next_series" and "prev_series", could be added.  In the example of the page, the Operation names are test series, not tests.  That would only account for 40 or so of the uses; I have no idea where else this box gets used.  SkoreKeep (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * 'Scuse me. That's previous_series and previous_test.  Too many years as a C programmer. SkoreKeep (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * so added, see documentation. Frietjes (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Frietjes, many thanks. Will use with alacrity!  SkoreKeep (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

A few more things...


Why no coords?
Seems to me that this infobox really could use a coords line. Abductive (reasoning) 04:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Abductive, added. Frietjes (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Bug with Next test - Previous Series
The order is usually previous on top and next on bottom.

However if there is a 'Previous test series' and 'Next test' then its inverted - previous goes on the bottom and next on top. Any way to fix this? Crazytrain411 (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Crazytrain411, I made some changes. is that better? Frietjes (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Frietjes I do like the chronology arrow change and it didn't seem to increase the width of the infobox which is good, but the template changes wont take effect, they will need to be applied on every page with a no change edit/save, this includes the many nuclear test pages and the HE ones, including the single test ones (probably hundreds also including chinese, russian, british, french tests)! Also curious if there is any kind of wiki standard when it comes to series/chronology sequenced wiki pages.Crazytrain411 (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Crazytrain411, if you need to "purge" transclusions of a template, you can try 'User:Frietjes/masspurge.js', but it does require creating a common.js (or equivalent) page as I have done at 'User:Frietjes/common.js'. once added, you can purge templates through the 'Special:MassPurge' page.  but, I am assuming you don't want to go through all the trouble, so I will purge the pages for this template for you.  as for a standard, we created template:succession links to have a standard, which is now used on over 60k pages. Frietjes (talk) 13:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Frietjes I can see the scripts but those pages are just showing the source, Im not sure how do you actually run that and give it inputs? Are there instructions anywhere? (In case I want to mass purge in future) Crazytrain411 (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Crazytrain411, (1) open User:Crazytrain411/common.js in edit mode, and (2) add the line  as I have in User:Frietjes/common.js, (3) go to Special:MassPurge and you should see a form where you can put a template name in the top box (fullname with the prefix), or a list of articles in the bottom box. Frietjes (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Image width
I suggest using 1.25 with the default box-width of 23.5em. this is the same as infobox mountain, and is a compromise between the suggested 1.35 and the current 1. Frietjes (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 1.35 is considered the absolute maximum (WP:IMAGESIZE and MOS:IMGSIZE) for a lead image. It seems absurd to me that I am forced to use such a huge size. I tried to reduce the size and got reverted on the grounds that we shouldn't use hard-coded sizes. 1.25 is still too large. I'll have to abandon the use of the infobox entirely. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought we were having a discussion here. I suggested a compromise, and your position is "my way or nothing"?  nice collaborative attitude. Also, it seems odd that you object to the wide image, but not to the wide infobox. Frietjes (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. The size of the infobox is driven by the size of the image. And I'm the only one working on the articles in question. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Assuming the font size in Vector.css is 75%, that makes 23.5em = 276px. So upping the infobox from 22 to 23.5 em has no effect. Image upright 1.3 x 300 px = 390 px. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hawkeye7 hello, I'm not entirely sure what's the problem? Where are you using the infobox and finding it too large? Can you post a link? I personally went through all US tests and they look pretty good. To give you some history the size was originally 1.14 (possibly for years)and what was happening is that a lot of text (locations) were broken up jumbled and ugly. I changed the infobox width along with a fix for locations. By reducing the image size you don't change the infobox, it's just a tiny pic inside the same infobox. Anyhow need to see where it's causing you the problem Crazytrain411 (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It does change the infobox, which resizes larger to accommodate the large image. I have put a copy of Operation Grapple's infobox at right. (Since you cannot pass upright parameters, I have created a copy that uses 1.2) We shouldn't be using 1.3. The only way I can override it is by hard-coding a size. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hawkeye7 OK I see what may be going on. I added Grapple to the template documentation so its easy to test changes. I tried 1, 1.25 and 1.3 and the infobox width absolutely did not change. The height does change slightly from 1 to 1.3. Is this what you meant and what you find wrong? Also the size at 1.3 is larger but I don't find it too large. Maybe what I see is not what you see. Can you check in your preferences that you don't have a custom thumbnail default? The default should be 220 px. 1.3 would make that 286 px wide, which should be fine, as the max recommended is 300 px. I suspect you have a different setting since you say its 390 px at 1.3. You can try setting your preferences to default then look at the page again. Another thing is the grapple image is very tall, so its the image ratio itself that makes it larger than most. Most other tests are not as wide as they are tall. Let us know.Crazytrain411 (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Operation Sandstone has a really tall image. Hmmm... Preferences -> Appearance -> Thumbnail size. Yes, it is set to 300px. That's funny... I thought everyone had to set it to the maximum. Maybe the maximum used to be 300px but is now 400px? Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Why are we using upright? Isn't it deprecated? (Village pump (technical)/Archive 155) Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hawkeye7 Ok, Im glad we have this mystery solved. With 300 px thumbnail 1.3 would make it 390 px which is really large. The defaults are weird, right now the default is 220, but maybe it depends when your account was created. Stranger is that mine was created back in 2008 and thumbnail default was actually smaller than 220! I think right now we should assume a 220 px default. Does it look fine with 1.3 or 1.25 in your opinion when you have 220 set? We have a few options:

Crazytrain411 (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Change it back to 1.3 - the image size will fit the infobox without enlarging it - tall images will look larger however like sandstone - really these images should be cropped to make them more even in ratio when going with this option.
 * Set it to 1.25 - this is a compromise where images are smaller than they could be in the infobox, but we handle tall images more 'gracefully'. I would vote for this, Grapple looks A-OK under this option with 220 default IMO.
 * Use 1 - This makes really tall images look 'good' at the expense of making most others small with lots of white space around.
 * Ok, I understand the problem now. I would go with 's 1.25 compromise too. My choice of images is unfortunately rather restricted. Bumping the default up to 300px was last (inconclusively) discussed in 2014 (Village pump (technical)/Archive 128) From the discussion, it seems that 400px was not an option then, and must have been added since. The 220px size looks acceptable on my 36" desktop monitor. I think I must have altered it for the laptop. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * done. Frietjes (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Frietjes thanks, the width size to 23.5 is ok too, i tested it earlier and it didn't break text. The max size is also an excellent solution to ppl with large defaults.Crazytrain411 (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)