Template talk:Infobox software/Archive 2

Software Logo Project
See Software Logo Project.

Position of name relative to icon
Who changed the template so that the title is above the icon? Personally, I think that it gives the box a sort of "stacked" appearence that looks awkward. It was much nicer looking when it was to the left of the icon.-- 19:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. If I understood the syntax of this template I'd put it back.  --Doradus 02:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I placed the logo to the left of the name, but this seems to have broken the example code! (Example code meaning the one on the template page itself.) and have purged the cache. æle ✆ 01:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The title should be above (or below) the icon. As it stands (with the title to the right of the icon) things look very sloppy. AmbientArchitecture 21:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, the problem is that this depends very much on the shape of the logo. E.g. Reason (program) looks dreadful with the logo to the left but AbiWord looks very nice with the logo to the left. Probably the solution is to cheat, keep the logo generally to the left but add a break to the logo to put the name below it when needed. See Apache HTTP Server for an example. Stefán Ingi 21:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * To clarify: the current position works fine on the many pages where people actually supply an icon, but the tag specifies "logo", and that is what appears on many software pages. These are often wide, resulting in a lopsided appearance, unless they are made very small. AmbientArchitecture 21:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the solution would be to use some more of the scripting, similar to how the license vs licence is done. It could be between several options with a default, such as logo (assume left or right, as a default), logoleft (logo goes to the left), logoright (logo goes to the right).  Or would that be too messy? --Localhost 22:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The example
I put an example of the template's usage on the template page. It has since been moved to the talk page with no explanation. I don't see why it's better to have an example on the talk page when the rest of the documentation is on the main page.

Does anyone have opinions on this? If not, I think I'll put it back. --Doradus 23:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I did it. If you object, here's the place to say so.  --Doradus 17:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistent preview version parameter
In the Usage section, the preview version parameter name is given as latest_preview_version but the actual code of the template states Latest_preview_release. I think the first version is preferable as it is consistent, but does anyone know what kind of impact there would be in changing the code to match this? --TheParanoidOne 11:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Tpyo on my part. Should have been all lowercase. -- Netoholic @ 11:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What about the version/release difference? --TheParanoidOne 13:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, didn't realize you were asking about the capital L and something else. fixed now though. -- Netoholic @ 13:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Thanks. Hopefully the fact that it was only introduced a few days ago won't impact on many articles. --TheParanoidOne 13:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I added it preemptively because I want to get rid of Template:Infobox Software2. If anyone feels like helping convert, I'd welcome it. -- Netoholic @ 14:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

English versus American
The policy of Wikipedia is to use whichever English already is present within the article, to not change to another arbitrarily. Therefore templates have to take this into account - whatever the article has, the template must have as well. People need to stop removing the second option. Janizary 20:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Genre?
As noted on Talk:List of software genres, I don't think genre is the right word for software. &mdash; pmcm 15:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, we should change this. - Centrx 15:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree genre applies to video games, not softwares. I think a better term would be kind, see the List of kinds of software article. --Goa103 01:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

usage on template page
The code posted as usage on the template is for copying and pasting, it should be left empty of parameters. Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 11:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree, I think it'd be obvious to even the most clueless newbie what  indicates. What's more, when copying/pasting the code, it clearly marks which ones are optional and which aren't (instead of having to refer back to the template if in doubt). —Locke Cole • t • c 11:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps something like "&lt;!-- optional --&gt;" would be a good compromise? It would allow copying and pasting without affecting the template if they are left in. --TheParanoidOne 15:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Good idea, I went and did that. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 15:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. If you want to list optional fields, do so under the copy & paste example. Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 05:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The usage there is for copying and pasting. There just shouldn't be any junk that is not going into the output in the copy and paste text. It only gets in the way. Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 06:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I disagree. I think it's helpful to know which fields need to be filled in and which don't while you're doing it. I really don't see the big deal here... —Locke Cole • t • c 06:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

operating_system_desc
operating_system_desc just doesn't work. When the parameter is present the text is empty. Look at the updated examples and Blog Torrent. I say this parameter should be removed if it cannot be tooled to work properly (I have serious doubts about it's need in the first place). Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 06:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This parameter should only be defined if it's being used. Obviously leaving it blank doesn't help... —Locke Cole • t • c 06:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * When a parameter is is not to be used, it is to be left blank. Ideally all parameters should be defined whether they are used or not. So having a defined parameter who's very presence breaks part of the template is counter productive. Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 07:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've removed it and replaced it with a  variable (which is optional). I've also made   optional as well, so you can use one or the other (or, if it's appropriate, both). —Locke Cole • t • c 07:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

License field
Hello lads: I notice that you've been having some troubles with the license field in this template before, and so I'm sorry to stack something more onto you about it. I'd fix it myself, but I'm unsure of how to work #if parameters. Anyhow, over here, the license bit isn't showing up at all in the infobox, even though I've added something into the field. Here's the diff. I don't know how to fix it, and it's not urgent, but I thought you might like to know. Cheers, Snoutwood (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ahhhh. Thanks to Locke Cole, that's now fixed. Cheers, Snoutwood (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I just fixed the license/licence parameter. Previously, it was writing "Licence" for both the license and licence template parameters. Now, it will write "License" if you specify the license parameter, and it will write "Licence" if you specify the licence parameter, as intended. If both parameters happen to be specified, then it writes "License" and the value of the license parameter, ignoring the licence parameter. Gremagor 05:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Developer/Maintainer screwup
Take a look at freeglut - the 'developer' is showing up as the 'maintainer' and the 'developer' field is missing. Weird.

The article was using a non-existant param maintainer -- I've fix that. Jayvdb 10:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No, you havn't.


 * It's still not right. When I edit the infobox, the field says "developer=" - but when it's displayed, it comes out as "Maintainer".  The problem with freeglut is that the author/developer (Pawel W. Olszta) is not the maintainer (Steve Baker & John Fay).  Pawel left the project ages ago.  He deserves (and actually requires) credit as the original author/developer because that was a part of the agreement under which he agreed to give me control over the software so it could be OpenSourced - but Pawel doesn't want people contacting him about maintenance matters because he's moved on to other things that are totally unrelated to graphics.


 * So at the very least, the field that displays on the page should say "Developer" and not "Maintainer" - but in truth, there should be two separate fields - one for the person/organisation/group who should be credited with the original authorship/development and another for the person/organisation/group who currently fix bugs in it. In actuality, I should stop using this template because the way it's set up right now, I simply can't express the truth using it.  Since I copied the infobox usage from some other page (sadly, I forget which one), it's evident that I'm not the only person who has this problem!


 * SteveBaker 15:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The 'developer' is used for the maintainer, or whoever is responsible. I think you want an 'author' parameter -- that would be a reasonable addition IMO.  As a result, you have three options:
 * create your own infobox
 * improve this infobox (if everyone else agree's)
 * use this infobox as-is, using the article body to mention any additional information required for the reader to understand the true nature.
 * Alternatively, you may find another infobox that suits your needs, like
 * Jayvdb 16:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Since (in general) 'developer' and 'maintainer' mean quite different things, either the present parameter's name should be changed to 'maintainer' - or what it should display as 'Developer' - it's completely confusing the way it is now. I would definitely support an 'original_author' field - if it's optional, it wouldn't hurt anyone to add that. SteveBaker 19:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK - I added an 'author' field (optional), added a note explaining the developer/Maintainer issue and added an 'Author' field to the bzflag example on this talk page (which is actually a PERFECT example of why we need and 'author' entry). SteveBaker 19:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice work. I wouldnt be surprised if 'Author' becomes more commonly used than 'Developer/Maintainer' Jayvdb 20:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Language
I added a parameter named language to allow specifying in which language(s) the software is available. I think three cases can mainly appears: The software is available in: French German Italian 16@r 00:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) only one language:
 * for example, language = English only
 * 1) few different languages (around 5 or less)
 * for instance, language = English
 * 1) in many different languages
 * language = Available languages, and a section named "Available languages" lists all languages.

SVG?
Hi, why does the template use SVG files? You can see Mozilla Firefox to see what I mean. The SVG files are not named in English, which is also a bit puzzling. --Kjoonlee 05:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. What SVG files?  I don't see one in the Firefox template.  --Doradus 21:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I see it now. You mean the version information?  I'm not sure.  People around here seem to have a strong desire to obfuscate the version number information.  I can't understand what's wrong with just putting it in the infobox.  --Doradus 21:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * can be edited independently of foobar2000, which is good. However, using SVG files for version numbers seems too much effort for too little benefits. --Kjoonlee 09:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I see no value in this "separate-editing" feature. Can you explain what exactly is the problem this solves?  To me it seems purely negative to keep this information on a separate page.  Personally, I'd be more inclined to remove the "latest stable release" information from Wikipedia altogether.  Wikipedia should not be in the business of publicizing software releases.  --Doradus 17:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Removed (see below). --surue&ntilde;a 13:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

software size
In my opinion it would be useful to add a field for application size in this template. I'm only expecting an order of magnitude type description but it'd be nice to know at a glance if the software described is 10kb or 100mb. Vicarious 09:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree as we sometimes would have to download the software to determine its size. Moreover the more we use dynamic data (latest version, release date...) the more it makes updating articles complicated. And as they say... size doesn't matter. --Goa103 01:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would add it's unclear if the current "size =" parameter is meant for size of download/install package or the size after installation (Even these days, people still run low on disk space) --Georgeryp (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Click
I'd like to ask why the click is used in this infobox. At first sight it does nothing useful, so I think the following code should be removed: }}{{#if:{{{1|}}}| Preview release:  {{Click|image=Versio de la softvaro {{{1}}} (nestabila).svg Is it there for backwards compatibility? (Note it is for a positional parameter instead of a named one). I also haven't found any image named "Image:Versio de la softvaro {{{1}}} (stabila).svg" or similar, neither here or at commons. This is strange... --surue&ntilde;a 15:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * link=commons:Image:Versio de la softvaro {{{1}}} (nestabila).svg
 * title=Date: YYYY-MM-DD (ISO 8601); Update: Do a click!|width=80px|height=10px}}


 * Removed because no article used it. --surue&ntilde;a 13:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Software2
Template:Infobox Software2 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. --Mike Peel 16:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Supporting more release information
Hi! Some software, say MySQL, requires information on releases such that there are two latest versions - one for the Enterprise tree and one for the Community tree. And then there's also a preview release (5.1). The template currently provides for Community and preview, but what about extending it to provide for Enterprise, as well? Byte 13:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The more we add parameters the more it makes the template not-flexible. We can't just suppose most softwares use the version model we have defined. I even think the "release" and "preview" parameters should be replaced by "latest version" and "latest date" parameters. Can't a parameter be a list ? We could then add a "latest type" parameter to make our model more flexible. It would work for alpha, beta, preview, stable, debug... releases. However I don't think non-stable release information are useful. They just make updating the articles more complicated. --Goa103 02:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

For or against a tagline (or slogan) parameter ?
I think adding a tagline parameter to this template would be useful. The Infobox Company template has a "company_slogan" parameter for example. Some software taglines :
 * MySQL : The world's most popular open source database.
 * PostgreSQL : The world's most advanced open source database.

I'm French and don't really understand the difference between a tagline and a slogan. Are my examples taglines or slogans ? --Goa103 01:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * For --Goa103 01:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Status
I added a status parameter. Intention is to indicate the status of the project:
 * Planned &mdash; development is initial and not released yet (e.g., Windows Vista prior to official release)
 * Active &mdash; development is active with releases (e.g., pretty much most current software)
 * Unmaintained &mdash; development has ceased (e.g., Synergy)

I'm sure there are plenty others but those are what I got to start with. I added it as optional with no default value. Cburnett 15:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Additional Screenshots
I was wondering it would be possible to add a second screenshot field to this infobox, for software where the UI is quite different between versions or operating environments? Jb17kx 11:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"licence" appears broken
I've just tried to use the licence-parameter, and the infobox displays an empty "License:" block. I expect it is a problem with the infobox's coding, since it does work if I use the license-parameter (i.e. with the second c replaced with an s). I have, however, decided to leave it as "licence" since I prefer British English.

See the problem for yourself at gtkam. Link (t&bull;c&bull;m) 11:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Works now. Ms2ger 15:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Programming language
How about adding to the template a field about the programming language used in programming the software? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 22:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's already there .. look for the "programming language" field in the documentation. + m t  03:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I must of missed it. I don't think I've seen it used in many/any articles. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 06:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't work though. I added it to the template in Paint.NET but it doesn't show. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 06:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's because Paint.NET use Infobox Software2 and not this template. So I added it this optional parameter and now it works. 16@r 10:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What's the difference between Infobox Software and Infobox Software2? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 12:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Software2 is intended to be used with articles describing software having frequently new versions. Thus, when there is a new release of the software, you don't need to edit the article, you just have to click on the version number and modify the subpage. The aim of this template is probably to avoid to have too many edit in the page history saying "new release". 16@r (talk) 11:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Parameters section added
I added a Parameters section and merged Notes in it. I don't know what "Released" should be (release date? "Yes/No"?). Also the Note that the "latest release date" is unnecessary doesn't look quite right. (SEWilco (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC))

Infobox Software vs Infobox Software2
I added a parameter named "frequently_updated" so that Infobox software2} is now no more necessary. If you want to have latest version and date numbers in a subtemplate, just set "frequently_updated" to yes. If you want to use "Infobox Software" in the classical way, you don't have to do anything, use it as you've always been used to. 16@r (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

collapsible problem
As you can see at Skype in a recent (stable) build of Mozilla Firefox, the caption overlaps the collapsible bar (including the 'show'/'hide' text. Even if it didn't overlap, I'm not sure the casual surfer would know clicking 'show' would display a screenshot. ¦ Reisio (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed 16@r (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Screenshot Hide/Collapsible Mode
This might just be the resolution (1152x864) i'm using but when you view a page with the screeshot hidden (EG: Tencent QQ) The text in the purple screenshot bar is extremly small and almost unreadable. (EG: ScreenShot). Peachey88 (Talk Page 10:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that I removed the guilty code, it must be better. 16@r (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. Peachey88 (Talk Page 12:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Toolkit
need a toolkit field for linux sw. it's very helpful to know at a glance if something is a GTK or KDE app for example —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petchboo (talk • contribs) 20:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

file size - maybe add a line for file size, downloaded, or unpacked.
editprotected maybe add a line for file size - downloaded, or unpacked. --Emesee (talk) 09:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. I also want a size field now. --Mac (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please copy the code from the sandbox to add this new field 16@r (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Handling the recent template moves
Based on a request by Sardanaphalus, the "latest stable release" and "latest preview release" templates are being moved to "latest stable software release" and "latest preview software release". I anticipate that this may cause widespread problems if not dealt with soon. Given the extent to which the moves have already been occurred, I'm thinking it would be easier to accordingly change the wording here and in the LSR and LPR templates, rather than undoing the moves. Dancter (talk) 02:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the edit request template, as the moves seem to have stalled. Dancter (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Clearly, this needs revisiting. I got here because I encountered a double-redirect when clicking that link for "latest preview release" in Opera (web browser). Accordingly:

Please replace all occurrences of:

Template:Latest preview release


 * with:

Template:Latest preview software release


 * also, please replace all occurences of:

Template:Latest stable release


 * with:

Template:Latest preview software release

This edit is needed to eliminated double-redirects that strand the Wikipedia reader in an edit window, looking at REDIRECT... code, instead of landing on the intended page. The problem affects a Featured Article -- Opera (web browser). :( Somone should double-check the template for any other malfunctions and double-redirects -- it clearly has not been looked at closely, lately. --Mareklug talk 21:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done I think. Happy‑melon 11:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The FireFTP article seems to have problems with editing version numbers. I am not sure if this is the cause.--roger6106 (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Reedy reverted the edit here, which broke it again. Not sure if it was because it broke something else, or it was a mistake- the edit summary is unclear. Can someone fix it again? As for FireFTP, it was missing the article parameter in the template, I added it so it at least works when clicking the numbers. The [+/-] links are still broken, as they are coded in Template:Infobox_Software (anyone know why they are needed, don't they do the same thing as clicking on the numbers?).--CoJaBo (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: you can't just "fix it again" - Reedy clearly reverted for a reason. You need to find out why, and come up with a solution which doesn't create that problem.  Just re-adding the same changes would be wheel warring. Happy‑melon 09:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, this is the same issue I reported yet again below. I have left a message on Reedy's talk page to come here and explain why he removed "software" to see what the problem was. Let's get all the problems fixed once and for all. -- Schapel (talk) 14:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's the deal. Not all the templates got moved. In particular, any latest stable release or latest preview release pages that are not redirects need to be moved. Because there are some pages that haven't been moved yet, changing this template causes problems. So, apparently all we need to do is finish the moves. That is not as simple as it sounds. I moved the 7-Zip release pages, which gets the correct information to appear in the Infobox, but when you click on the version number in the Infobox, it takes you to the wrong page to edit. I tried to moved the µTorrent stable release page to the new name, but it wouldn't let me. The bottom line is that I can try to fix as much as I can, but I'll need help when I run into problems as in the two software releases I mention. -- Schapel (talk) 11:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've resolved the problems I had with 7-Zip and µTorrent, and I've been making steady progress toward getting all the templates renamed. At this point, I think it would help to add back the two occurrences "software" in the links for the +/- text in the template. This change would be a fix for more than 90% of the infoboxes at the expense of breaking less than 10% of the infoboxes. It will help prevent editors from editing (and messing up) the redirects I'm creating, and when I'm done with moving the templates, all of those +/- links would be working (as opposed to them all being broken). We can wait to add back the other two instances of "software", because the redirects created by moving the templates prevent this from being a problem with nearly all infoboxes; I think it is really only this change that Reedy meant to revert, because it did cause lots of problems without fixing any problems. -- Schapel (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Template now supports both forms, defaulting to the newer "software" version. --- RockMFR 18:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The renaming is now complete. The template can be changed so that it supports only the new form if desired. -- Schapel (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)