Template talk:Infobox software

Field labels: wrapping, order, pluralization
Currently, the template is set up to prevent any of the field labels from wrapping. Where the author or operating system fields are used, this can lead to the data being squished and can result in the infobox being substantially longer than necessary. Further to 's unopposed suggestion a few years ago, I want to suggest that we remove the blanket nowrap style for labels and instead allow all labels to wrap except for "Other names", "Initial release, "Written in", "Included with", "Available in", and "As of". On the one page I have tested this on (MSN Messenger), it shortens the infobox by three lines while also making the infobox look less awkward.

I would also suggest that the type field be moved immediately underneath the other names field, from its current location at nearly the bottom of the infobox. In most cases, the software type is a two- or three-word summary of what the piece of software is used for, which is most useful for someone unfamiliar with it.

Lastly, rather than using an s in parentheses to show optional pluralization, in most cases, we can use pluralize from text to detect whether the data is plural. In cases where it is unsure, (s) could be retained.

I have added the necessary code to the template sandbox. Any thoughts? Graham (talk) 03:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Could more fields be filled in from Wikidata automatically?
E.g. the license field? Or "programming languages"? Heinrich5991 (talk) 07:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add code to the sandbox version of the template. Keep in mind that Wdib must be used, and that only sourced data can be imported, per the Wikidata in Infoboxes RFC. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

open source / closed source
Add a row to describe if a software is open source or closed source, etc.

No, even though the licence might be proprietary, one still needs to know if the software is open or closed source. Jidanni (talk) 04:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that is what license is for. If not, please provide an example article where that parameter is insufficient. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Auto Wikidata value for initial release
I suggest adding to  to make it look for the release marked as initial release on Wikidata. See Polkit for an example. The RedBurn (ϕ) 10:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC) Note that an error is shown if the reference doesn't have a title, is there a way to hide that error?. The RedBurn (ϕ) 16:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Claims pulled from Wikidata need to be sourced. You probably need to use Module:WikidataIB instead of Wikidata. Feel free to sync the sandbox with the live template and then make a proposed change. It looks like the article you linked has a citation for the release date, so it should work fine. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. Unfortunately, Module:WikidataIB can't display references, so it can't be used in infoboxes (even though it's made for that). And the main contributor (RexxS) doesn't want to add support for references.
 * Here's an example : shows  The RedBurn (ϕ) 16:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've accidentally went ahead and added my version of this to the sandbox, which also has something else... @Jonesey95 wikidata has the flag "sourced" which limits display to only sourced claims. Is that not enough? Aaron Liu  (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That might work. I am not familiar with the nuances of that parameter, but if it pulls only reliably sourced data, that should satisfy the RFC's requirements. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there's still that problem of references without title showing an error instead of the reference URL. The RedBurn (ϕ) 11:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Correction: I didn't realize that Module:Wikidata isn't the same as Module:Wd (so with Module:WikidataIB that makes three Wikidata modules!). The RedBurn (ϕ) 11:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * After verification, the same error is shown when no title is available. The RedBurn (ϕ) 11:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we should encourage editors to add titles. Aaron Liu  (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's supposed to happen eventually, but better not hold our breath, see https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T199197 The RedBurn (ϕ) 17:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Do we have to wait for titles? I feel like doing it now can encourage updating citations on WD. Aaron Liu  (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Now that @Janhrach has fixed the references without title error linked above in Module:Wd, it can be used for initial release.
 * Actually, for initial release ("released ="), for "latest release version" and for "latest release date". The reference should be shown for initial release, "latest release version", and {{start date and age| should be used for "latest release date", see Polkit.
 * For initial release, Polkit isn't a good example, as it doesn't show the date and doesn't use {{start date and age|. Note that, sometimes, only P571 exists (with just the date, not the version), fr:Modèle:Infobox Logiciel can use both to show as much information as is available, see fr:Polkit. The RedBurn (ϕ) 06:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You might want to try and reincorporate the edits I made. That could make it faster. Aaron Liu  (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * {{ping|The RedBurn}} Just a little note: I haven't really fixed the module, I am still going to improve the error message. What I did is that I let Cite Web report the most trivial and common error. It is quite probable you will encounter the old error message when there are less trivial errors in a reference. In that case, feel free to contact me for help. Janhrach (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

"Template:Infobox software2" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_software2&redirect=no Template:Infobox software2] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Magioladitis (talk) 08:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

DOS Navigator
Citation in the infobox is generating a red error message. It is pulling a URL from WD and using a CS1|2 template without a title. It looks like the source of the problem is this template. -- Green  C  01:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It needed a title added in the Wikidata entry. Very editor-unfriendly. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 4 July 2024 -- Pluralize from text
Description of suggested change: Please implement Pluralize from text for the following labels. Note that the label “Standards” is presumed to be more natural English for ambiguously plural content than “Standard”. The inverse is presumed of the other two labels.

Diffs:

Thank you! — HTGS (talk) 04:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I like this idea, but the template is not without faults when interpreting company names. For example:

Therefore, the current proposal may not be ideal. IceWelder &#91; &#9993; &#93; 08:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Developer Developer
 * Developer Developer


 * My own attitude to this problem has been that it isn’t actually a problem. I personally find the wrong pluralization less annoying than the (s) ending, and the classic style used in print is still grammatically acceptable (eg, Developers: Doe and Doe LLC}). And, for these cases, there is always force singular, for which I am happy to write guidance into the documentation (and even go through and add the tag to articles). — HTGS (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hm, I'd rather have on stable version than one that can render in unexpected ways. Continuing below... IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 16:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * (s) is fine for me. Alternatively we can add another parameter for the plural version, e.g. . SWinxy (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am also fine with plural parameters. — HTGS (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Plural paramaters are fine on a technical level but a huge pain to maintain. If there is an overwhelming consensus, we can still implement it. Other than that, the easiest way to get rid of "(s)" constructs would be to make the parameters generically singular or generically plural, as some other templates have done. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 16:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Disabling the request for now. Please re-enable, when there's consensus for which of the approaches is to be used. —⁠andrybak (talk) 11:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)