Template talk:Infobox software/Archive 7

Template-protected edit request on 20 October 2016
should be removed, editors should not be forced to input a specific value for images, and leaving it blank results in a very bad visualisation. Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 11:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Breaks thousands of articles and seems to have no benefit whatsoever.
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 11:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Take, for example, Rockstar Advanced Game Engine, the SVG logo as a default size of 476x201, but is shrunk to 64x27 when so parameter is used. By default, most infoboxes (case examples: Infobox video game and Infobox company) have images in "plain file name" format displayed correctly. Furthermore, 64px is way too small. Both example Infobox use "frameless" as default size, and it works perfectly. Adding to it, your argumentation is false: Where this would "break" something, it would actually enhance: AutoCAD was the first I found to use no parameter for the image, and the logo far from a well-readable size. Most other pages are already forced to use the parameters. From the first 20 transclusions of this page, two pages suffered from this, and two gain; note however that both that gain use a screenshot for visualization, which is not the case for the other two, or my RAGE example. A generally wise change would be to adapt the logo size depending on the presence of a screenshot:  Does that sound logical?  Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 12:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what you said, your suggestion has negative impact on Adobe Photoshop, MediaMonkey, iTunes, Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft PowerPoint, Mozilla Thunderbird, Firefox, Opera (software), Opera Mobile, Adobe Acrobat, Windows Live Mail.


 * If and only if you found a solution to this, set up a sandbox and testcase to show us that we can transition without fear of breakdown.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 12:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I opened Infobox software/sandbox2, which is the current version plus the code snippet I explained above, and it works! Go ahead and try the preview on RAGE to see the enhancement, and on Adobe Photoshop to see that nothing has changed. The infoboxes transcluding this template and not using any size parameter or likewise without screenshot will be enhanced, all others will see no change. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 12:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Test results were unsatisfactory. If someone adds a screenshot to RAGE, the logo shrinks back to nothing. If someone adds gibberish to the screenshot field of RAGE, the logo shrinks back again. I said fix the problem, not make more problems.
 * Like before, you are trying to apply a global solution to a local problem. Why don't you just add a logo size to RAGE instead? No amount of coding can fix bad article writing. Having to combat them with coding is like trying to kill a hydra's head. The moment one problem is resolved, two more crop up.
 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * You know, it is possible that all I said above is my opinion and you may get a consensus if you started an RfC, although you are going to need to set up a convincing test case as well. But if a consensus is gathered, I cannot withhold your request. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Fairly, I don't just want to overturn your voice by inviting more editors of my opinion, even if I could, but I would like to find a satisfying solution to this. You pointed out the following problems: The logo shrinks if a screenshot is added, and the logo shrinks if the screenshot param is vandalized. On the latter: If the screenshot field is messed with, it will result in a red-linked "300px", pointing out a faulty image, so it has to be removed regardless and the logo would keep its size. On the first of those: I have minorly modified the template according to the change you made on the RAGE article, making the defaultsize x64px instead of 64px, if a screenshot is present. This way, squared logos (as with Adobe Photoshop) would have no change. I can see a problem occuring for pages with really wide logos, but those cases are so rare, that it would be the point where the logo size param would come in handy, don't you think?
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordtobi  (talk • contribs) 15:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. You gave it your best shot. I think it is safe to update Infobox web browser and Infobox programming language as well. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I appreciate you taking your time for me. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 16:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Two horizontal separators between Initial release and Stable release on Mobile
Does anybody know why there are two separator between Initial and Stable release when browsing an Infobox-software on mobile?

Alcotor (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:Articles which use infobox templates with no data rows
Cross-posted to WP:VP/T

Can anyone figure out why pages are added to Category:Articles which use infobox templates with no data rows if  isn't set in Infobox software? After a quick glance myself, I'm not sure what the issue is, but I know it's related to this row. There are 2339 pages that are in both this category and use Infobox software, and I'm betting it's related to this bug. Avicennasis @ 09:44, 25 Cheshvan 5777 / 09:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's because the subtemplate - which is itself an infobox - is not being fed any data other than the word "PulsePoint" in the first positional parameter, and the template  in the fourth, and two templates don't exist. It needs at least the third or the fifth positional parameter to be non-blank, or the existence of either  or . -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi.
 * I made the following edits to Infobox software/simple:


 * Please keep an eye out for trouble.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 13:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

no repositories bug "no%20value"
see for yourself : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bzip2&oldid=757243753 another example : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lzip&oldid=744171043 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.182.238.130 (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi.


 * This issue is already reported at.


 * Attn:


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 12:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Official website
Hi,

I think there's a bug in this infobox when there's two official websites in a Wikidata item: Special:Permalink/759631374.

Cheers. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 07:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That doesn't seem to have anything to do with the infobox. However I will take a look. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 10:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, this does seem to have to do with the infobox. The Wikidata item shows two official websites, and this template invokes both — which arguably it should. However it isn't splitting them up, but simply invoking them both in one string making the link go nowhere. In lieu of being able to solve it myself, ping who is good at using Module:Wikidata.  Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 10:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. This issue is easily repairable by setting one of the Wikidata items as preferred. And that's what I did.


 * I wish WikiData was never created. It is nothing but heap of trouble, without so much as a benefit.
 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Additional parameter
Many software tools described with that template are used to create images; in Commons are lists like c:Category:SVG created with ... templates and c:Category:Created with ... templates how such images are created with such software tools. How about a possibility to show about the usage of the software? An Infobox-parameter like "usage= " could link to a creation template at Commons where always the categories with the images are shown. A tool like CorelDRAW would show Usage:  Created with CorelDRAW where all the categories containing images, SVG and non-SVG, are shown. Might be a good example! -- sarang ♥ 사랑 09:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi.


 * You should use Commonscat for this purpose.


 * Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but Commonscat is not well fitting for the purpose I meant. I thought about a parameter creating a label "Usage:" (or so) at a suited row within the infobox, with a link to the corresponding Category:Created with ... if a value is assigned.
 * Alternative: Because categories exist for each of the tools it does not need any parameter and can display the link in every case.
 * With your suggestion the link can either occur far down (concealed, instead of well visible in the box ) or, without that additional parameter, with another parameter and no label as I did now at CorelDRAW. Not satisfying at all! Best regards,  sarang &#x2665; 사랑 10:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi again
 * It is somewhat unsettling to see just how many things in Wikipedia are vying for attention that are not the actual contents. It is like restaurant that has many large colorful menus for entrees and deserts but none for the actual food.
 * IMHO what you are asking for does not deserve attention.
 * Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Repo property data is poorly formatted
Currently on GNU Units this infobox is very wide, as it want's to show: These are Wikidata properties. Firstly, the external link is not formatted. Secondly, it is unreasonably wide, and does not wrap. I'm not sure the appropriate method to fix this. + m t  20:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi.
 * The follow is what happens:


 * 1)  selects the following from what it receives from WikiData and sends it to URL:
 * 2)  formats it into the following:
 * 3) Wikipedia rendering engine receives this string, does not understand that this is a URL syntax, and as such renders it as this:
 * cvs://:pserver:anonymous@cvs.savannah.gnu.org:/web/units cvs: //:pserver:anonymous@cvs .savannah .gnu .org: /web /units
 * Basically, what we have is the URL printed twice, once without WBR and once with WBR. The part without WBR is what causes the template to extend, because it cannot break.
 * cvs://:pserver:anonymous@cvs.savannah.gnu.org:/web/units cvs: //:pserver:anonymous@cvs .savannah .gnu .org: /web /units
 * Basically, what we have is the URL printed twice, once without WBR and once with WBR. The part without WBR is what causes the template to extend, because it cannot break.


 * Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * So, this is happening because MediaWiki isn't recognising "cvs" as a URL protocol. I believe there is a whitelist of protocols, and if I remember rightly there are security implications to allowing URLs with certain protocols to be made into links. So the choices here are a) don't try to make this URL into a link, b) try to find a URL to the repository that has an accepted protocol, and c) add support for cvs urls to MediaWiki (assuming that the protocol is safe, which I am not sure about). I think option a) may be the easiest. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 01:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This is much more complicated than I thought. Perhaps for this instance it would be easiest to simply add in  to bypass Wikidata's version. + m  t  05:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Good idea. Commencing bypass! —Codename Lisa (talk) 05:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi. You might want to take a look at the latest status of this mess:
 * Hi. You might want to take a look at the latest status of this mess:


 * Since the number of URLs in WikiData is now two, URL is no longer in play.
 * Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Official website (2)
On MongoDB, the official website in the infobox is rendered as: www.mongodb.org/,%20https://www.mongodb.com/. This is most likely because Q1165204 for MongoBD has two external links specified. While this can be fixed there by removing one, can we fix the template so that only one value is used instead of querying all - which forced them to be merged by a comma and used as one (broken) value. Krinkle (talk) 06:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi.
 * You can fix the situation by marking one of the URLs in WikiData as preferred.
 * That said, we seem to lack trained developers who know the arcana of fetching information from WikiData.
 * Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a case where one should be removed (though there may be legitimate desire elsewhere for multiple sites). --Izno (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed —Codename Lisa (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Original authors
The above phrase is redundant. By definition, an author is the one who created the work. I would change it, but there does not seem to be a way here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeenAroundAWhile (talk • contribs) 23:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And the inventors of page protection rejoice, knowing that they once again protected the page against poor editing decisions. Yes, I am calling your editing decision poor. Sue me. —Codename Lisa (talk) 11:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Repo revisited
In cases where the  parameter is not specified and the information cannot be retrieved from Wikidata, the Repository entry still appears in the infobox with a link to no%20value. See, for example, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C.a.R.&oldid=695211146 C.a.R.] (I don't know if this problem was introduced by attempts to fix the issue with  that was discussed in ...) - dcljr (talk) 11:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed it. WikiData had a repo field but it was empty. Deleted it and everything is now fine. —Codename Lisa (talk) 04:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Initial release version
Can we have a flag for this as well, like we have for "latest release version"? Not all software are initially released as version 1.0.0. Thanks! SharkD  Talk  15:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello,
 * No we can't. This field intends to register the date when version 1.0 is released. Glorifying apps that never release a version 1.0 is against our WP:NPOV policy.
 * Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So programs like FreeCol should not use this template? Or what about GIMP? It is used as the example in this template's documentation, but misuses this particular field as well, since version 1.0 was not released in November 1995. Can you link to where this policy is discussed? SharkD   Talk  17:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I found the Talk page archives and will look through them. SharkD   Talk  17:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * FreeCol is a video game. It can use Infobox video game. But as for GIMP, its production version is released on 2 June 1998. That's the date you can put in release data. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have a problem with the text "Initial release" in that case. The intuitive meaning is "first" release, not "1.0" release. "Initial release" should be replaced with some other better text. Also, could you link to your NPOV policy? It seems a little weird, and I don't see it anywhere at WP:NPOV.  SharkD   Talk  09:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. The word "release" has long changed meaning. Initially, it meant "release to manufacturing". But open-source software are in the state of release all the times. The infobox could use better wording. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Video games and infoboxes
There is talk at Template_talk:Infobox_video_game on which infobox to use for open source video games. I thought many of you might be interested. SharkD  Talk  11:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Add title to the images
Please add  and   to the calls of Module:InfoboxImage (image and image2 parameters, respectively), so that image links themselves will contain the captions. This is used by MultimediaViewer and search engines, and also makes sure screen readers will find the caption. Thanks in advance, --Tacsipacsi (talk) 10:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Izno (talk) 11:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

RFC: Initial release
Hello.

I am calling upon the community to review and redefine the purpose of the "Initial release" field of the infobox (release parameter). According to the current documentation, this field is intended to indicate: "The date in which version 1.0 (or closely-matching release) of the software product in question reaches its release to manufacturing (RTM) stage. In case the article is about a specific major release of a software product (for instance Internet Explorer 8 or Microsoft Office 2007), this field should contain the date in which that specific major release reached RTM stage. In case the software product is still in development and has not reached its RTM stage, please ignore this field; do not use this field to specify the release date of the first preview/test release of the software product; there is already another parameter for that use."

This description is at best problematic: When someone sees the phrase "initial release", he or she does not take it to mean "RTM of 1.0" and these two are not synonymous right now. We must revise this state of affair. But which way?


 * Option 1: Change the field name. Version 1.0 is a very important milestone. In open-source projects, there are definitely version numbers before this milestone, but the project before this milestone is a toy for developers and is not meant to be taken seriously, especially by the conservative enterprise sector, which is very sensitive about technical support and disruption of the workflow. For example, see Firefox or Lazarus. Some apps remain in perpetual beta but glorifying them with a mention in the infobox has WP:DUE issues as they are never to be used on mission critical machines. We can rename the field into "v1.0 milestone". As for changing release, so that it is not misleading, let's just say that's my problem.
 * Option 2: Change the criterion. If it says "initial release", mustn't it show the date and version of the initial public release regardless of the version number and seriousness? Isn't it important to show when an app's development started? We can always supplement the infobox with a new v1.00 date, so that it can tell people that e.g. Lazarus was 11 years and six month in development before it became something serious.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Poll
Please start your verdicts with "Option 1" or "Option 2". Because this infobox is transcluded 12,528 times, the dominant verdict must be have a margin of 10.


 * Option 1. This is what readers are likely to want to know. It is also reasonably well defined and well documented, whereas development versions can leak out to friends of developers, favored customers, etc., in ways that are unofficial and undocumented. (The documentation of a template should always take priority. The documentation is likely to have been considered carefully, whereas the name of the parameter may not have been considered at all.) Maproom (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Either Option, with a preference for Option 2[edit]. Basically, something must be done. I'm not so sure about WP:DUE, since the notability of a piece of software has nothing to do with its version number. Early public releases also are very common among FOSS, and a lot of non-FOSS only get a public release at or after 1.0, so this change will have little or no effect on them. Also, keep in mind Option 2 will require an "initial release version" tag to be added so we know the version number. SharkD   Talk  09:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Option 2 - please see my reasoning below. Timtempleton (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

 * You probably will not get an "initial release version" for the same reason that this info was never added to Infobox OS and the now-gone Infobox OS version: While the latest version number has comparison value the initial version number has no tangible practical use. It is fancruft. —Codename Lisa (talk) 10:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think listing the version number of the initial release is very import if we go for Option 2. Obviously, it is not important if we go for Option 1. SharkD   Talk  21:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * If a program is "mission critical", then the person choosing the software can easily see from "latest release date" that the program has not reached version 1.0 yet. The issue is moot. SharkD   Talk  04:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And, if said person is not paying attention, then they are not doing their job. SharkD   Talk  04:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * No change The need for any change has not been sufficiently justified and the existing guidance looks better than either of the choices offered, so WP:STATUSQUO is to be preferred. Since the Software versioning#Version 1.0 as a milestone has specific context, that should be used if available.  Even if the 1.0 is immature (such as Windows 1.0, use of the designation has a noted context.  If there are products without numerical release then - handle those as ad hoc exceptions as they are not the norm.  Markbassett (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Because the first two programs I checked - FreeCol and GIMP - misused/abused this parameter. I will look and see if there are any more. SharkD   Talk  03:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Wine (software), Mozilla Thunderbird, K-Meleon and GNU nano are some other examples. I'm not going to look for any more. SharkD   Talk  04:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also Firefox. These include some big name software in the FOSS sphere, with a lot of interested parties! SharkD   Talk  04:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * User:SharkD - Mmm unclear why or how you are thinking those misused it. Gimp is actually the example used in the template, which doesn't necessarily mean it's perfect but someone did think it was a good example.   Firefox seems OK to me, that it is the date of initial release under it's first name may be unclear but it does seem the date of first public release a.k.a. "initial release" or a.k.a. "1.0" in the Software versioning or Software release life cycle sense.  As the template says "The date in which version 1.0 (or closely-matching release)".  I do think the "RTM" part more closely matches to commercial production than FOSS items.   It's use seems more clear at say Microsoft Project -- that of the product before MS bought it.   A cloud product like SharePoint or suite such as Google Docs, Sheets and Slides may have to similarly puzzle out what is "closely-matching" to a 1.0 RTM.  In any case, take it as a given that I can produce a similar list of umpteen products - maybe more in quantity or size -- and skip ahead to does this relate to the RFC choices, and if so then how ?  Changing the field label or criterion to something less prominent than "1.0" is not going to affect that there are always going to be odd cases and mistakes.  If anything, I think both options and the sheer act of changing would only make things worse, but I'm not getting the impression that is what you were thinking.  Markbassett (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My point is that the template instructions say to use version 1.0 in that field, and the articles I listed didn't or don't do this. Are you saying the criterion should be different for FOSS? Because I don't understand your rambling response. SharkD   Talk  18:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * SharkD - no, no ... I think you've misread and that the things you think are errors are from that misunderstanding.  The instructions for initial release is saying initial release -- it's version 1.0 "(or closely-matching release)", so that says use what is closely-matching to an initial public release even if it isn't called "1.0".   Software versioning or Software release life cycle both make it clear that 1.0 is used as a label to mean the initial public release, derived from the typical designation in sequence-based versioning.  But for products versioning by date ("98" or "2000" or "20040505") or  numerical (10, 11, 22,) or cutely starting from zero ("0.1"), or done for a marketing reason (starting with version "3.1"), or embedding the environment/implementation (w32.7.5) the initial public release as a product is going to have a different designation and sometimes name than "1.0".  For example, I think Firefox dates from Pheonix 0.1, WINE starting version might be 19930704 and went to 0.9 after 20050930, and Microsoft Project dates from when released by the company who MS later bought it from and MS restarted numbering at 1.0 when they went to a Windows-based version.   Cheers.  Markbassett (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, then why do you object to adding an "initial release version" flag to the template? That way, everyone is clear on what version was the initial public release, if and when it differs from "1.0". SharkD   Talk  20:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Codename Lisa - it's OK to discuss my input below, but what was submitted as a poll input should not be moved or deleted and I have replaced it as it is my poll reply. The poll should provide a 'no change' or 'none of the above' type response, and allow edits.   That's more the norm and WP:RFC guide, and if you prefer to alter the RFC text now to include something like that and read my text as saying so, feel free.   Cheers  Markbassett (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * sigh. This RFC may be invalid.  Lisa again removed my poll input despite my above objections to her earlier moving it and suggestion to change RFC text, so in addition to this looks like an erroneous concern it is also conducting a RFC that does not adhere to WP:TPO, WP:RFC, or WP:POLLING so may be invalid in results.   I will try for a third time by entering the 'Neither' option per WP:RFC "If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template." and then adding my input.    Markbassett (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said in your talk page, we are here trying to eliminate an ambiguity. You are trying to stop us without showing a benefit in doing nothing, and without showing a harm in doing either of the two. You just seem to love being a stumbling block to a well-meant effort! This is called disruptive editing and we do not tolerate it. —Codename Lisa (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Codename Lisa - read WP:TPO " Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, 'even on your own talk page.' " Particularly since I objected and replaced it, and then a third time, see "normally you should stop if there is any objection."  I tried to simply get an poll input done when my comment was and is  neither of those choices.   Now it's a matter of poll conduct looks like this is a rigged election.  Over & out.  Markbassett (talk) 02:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning." I never did such a thing. Contact an admin.
 * "this is a rigged election" First, it is not election at all. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Second, in every election, there are approved candidates. What you are doing here is analogous to trying to vote for Santa Claus in a presidential election and then complaining that your vote gets voided.
 * All I am asking you is to demonstrate that maintaining status quo is a real consideration-worthy option.
 * —Codename Lisa (talk) 03:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * IMO sounds more like you are posting drunk than like you are contributing to this conversation. I can't understand half of what you say. If you're not going to make an effort, go troll somewhere else. SharkD   Talk  20:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * No change. Release version numbers aren't all that important, especially not for the initial release. People are more likely to want to know when it was first released.--Topperfalkon (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the description says that the field should be used to describe the date it was released to manufacturing, not specifically the version number. Maybe it's a tad confusing, but I don't really see the supplied options as improvements. --Topperfalkon (talk) 11:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a simple matter of disambiguation. Unless it is demonstrated (or at least claimed) that there is a benefit in keeping the status quo or a harm in changing the it, there is definitely going to be a change. So, you might as well take a side. —Codename Lisa (talk) 12:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Firstly, apologies for the late reply. Secondly, if consensus suggests that no change is required, I don't see the requirement to pick a side. More to the point, this discussion is overly fixated on version numbers, whereas the description states that the date of the RTM version is what the field is asking for. Traditionally, RTM happened at v1.0, sure, but that seems a lot less common with modern software releases.--Topperfalkon (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the current policies are being abused by a lot of open source software. For instance, Mozilla Thunderbird's "release" date is listed as July 2003, despite the fact that this was version 0.1. Is version 0.1 of Thunderbird equal to the RtM date for other software? Maybe, but I don't think so. I am interested in learning the release date as well, but want to know the version 1.0 date. SharkD   Talk  08:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "current policies"? Whose policies? Is the v1.0 date specifically important? Do we need to list every other major version number as well, with the date it's released? What about minor version numbers? Either way, these aren't really problems with this field. --Topperfalkon (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * These policies: "The date in which version 1.0 (or closely-matching release) of the software product in question reaches its release to manufacturing (RTM) stage. In case the article is about a specific major release of a software product (for instance Internet Explorer 8 or Microsoft Office 2007), this field should contain the date in which that specific major release reached RTM stage. In case the software product is still in development and has not reached its RTM stage, please ignore this field; do not use this field to specify the release date of the first preview/test release of the software product; there is already another parameter for that use." A lot of FOSS articles are listing the first public release, whatever the state the code might have been in at the time. So either the parameter name needs to be changed to something less ambiguous, or we change the criteria to include the first public release. SharkD   Talk  18:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Another option might be to rename the "release" parameter to "rtm date" or something else. That is less ambiguous, but does not actually change policy. SharkD   Talk  08:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is what option 1 does. —Codename Lisa (talk) 10:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not quite. My point is that people have been complaining that "v1.0 milestone" in Option 1 is too strict. "rtm date" or "rtm release" is less strict yet is still better than what we have, and is still in the spirit of the original policy. It would require no additional changes. SharkD   Talk  12:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Small details are always negotiable. That's option 1 with a minor negotiation. —Codename Lisa (talk) 04:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Summoned by bot. This took me some time to figure out - it's confusing because the template's field names aren't the same as the names that show in the infobox, so I had to keep going back to the template parameter instructions. I think option 2 is the way to keep this the simplest.  The three most interesting and useful software infobox date parameters are the ones that are showing: "latest preview date" (titled "Preview release" in template), "released" (not "release" as you have it in your comments above, and titled "Initial release" in infobox ), and "latest release date" (titled "Stable release" in infobox). I referred to the Software release life cycle article when forming my opinion.  "Latest preview date" is the date the latest Beta release was made available to anyone besides its developers - the date that someone in the outside world would first see the latest version of the software, usually for integration and compatibility testing.  When the software hits Beta for the first time, that date is the initial Beta date (a.k.a. latest preview date), but it changes as subsequent Beta releases are made available.  Significant Beta launches that need to be preserved for the historical record can be added to the history section - but not every product is significant enough to need to list every Beta date.  The "released" date should be the first date that the general public can get their hands on the software, which is usually expected to be fairly stable, although that is not always the case (see Windows).  "Latest release date" is the date that the current version was made available to the public - the most current version the public can get.  Anything else such as the date the software is released to manufacturing (RTM), the current "released" criterion, is going to be of limited interest to anyone except the developers and integration partners, but certainly not the general Wikipedia reader.  Plus, the dates that partners get to start working with a new release may not be available, if it's a trade secret and there are non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) involved. So the "released" field is much more useful if it refers to the date that the public can get the software.  The other part of Option 2 - adding a v1.0 parameter, would only be useful if all the software developers agree on the meaning of v1.0, rather than it being a subjective naming decision.  If they do, then adding V1.0 could be useful. This article suggests there's no consensus, so the argumenmt is to not add that new field.  If there's any other exception or unique date for a particular software, that can be added to the body of the article, with an explanation as to why it's important, detailed info you obviously can't put in the template.  This keeps changes to the template to a minimum.  While studying this issue, I noticed another couple of potential points of confusion.  Clicking the "Stable release" parameter on the template redirects to the top of Software release life cycle, but the Stable release article (a redirect) actually goes to a more useful spot within the article: Software_release_life_cycle.  Similarly, clicking the "Preview release" parameter on the template also sends the reader to the top of that Software release life cycle article, but a more appropriate spot would be Software release life cycle. Can't figure out how to change it on the template - it may be deeper Wiki code. Timtempleton (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

"Repository" field: bad handling of null values
Spotted: Cobian Backup.

Whether there is "| repo =" in the code or not, the result is such a link: no%20value.

Google gives more examples. 195.187.108.4 (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

use wikidata for developer, license by default
Please use wikidata for developer and license by default (as in Template:Infobox OS). Please change the code as followed,
 * data2     =

Thanks you. --Ans (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * data16    =
 * Oh, great! More unreferenced junk coming from WikiData.  Fleet  Command ( Speak your mind! ) 04:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello,
 * Should I take that as an opposition? Or this is just for the record?
 * Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: If neither of you two want to say something, I am afraid I do not have the clearance to proceed with the requested change. —Codename Lisa (talk) 10:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, you want me to say something?! You like my bellyaching about WikiData, don't you? WikiData is a legitimized excuse for violating policy, guideline, style and common sense, all in one fell swoop. Let me give you an example: MOS:LINUX. After much deliberation, discussion, consensus-building, toil and stress, we decided not to called the damned thing GNU/Linux. Guess what? Those morons at WikiData are calling it GNU/Linux!
 * Things that come from WikiData mostly have no source. When they do, their source is a single freaking link! When it is not so, they still don't adhere to WP:CS1.
 * And now, something specific to this request: It asks for importing "license" from WikiData! Have you ever been to Commons? Have you seen how most contributors are totally ignorant about copyright? Have you seen how not a single screenshot uploaded there isn't licensed correctly? How most of them are uploaded under the claim of "Own work, CC-BY-SA-4.0"? WikiData contributors are orders of magnitude more incompetent. I've seen people removing "freemium" and "shareware" from the license field, claiming that these are not licensing terms, but business models. As if licensing is NOT a matter of business model!
 * And how are you going to handle multiple licenses anyway? See the thread below and several above: You guys are already having a lot of trouble importing multiple links for the repository parameter! Or dealing with it properly when there is repo field that has no contents.
 * Strong bloody oppose!  Fleet  Command ( Speak your mind! ) 17:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I believe if I set aside your bitterness, what is left has merit. The fault cross-section is broad and there is precedent for being unable to address it.
 * In that case, while I cannot block the change indefinitely, I can demand it to be proven to work in a sandbox.
 * Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Indent
Please indent the  sign in the usage documentation so they all align at the same column. -- Frap (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support and done! I also fixed an HTML typo in your message that affects the entire talk page. I hope you don't mind. —Codename Lisa (talk) 06:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe the user whished for something like  rather than   (Wikipedia cuts the extraneous whitespacing, please check the code to see what I'm talking about). Nethertheless, I don't think that code indentation is anyhow useful. Especially when editing on mobile, every infobox-code line would have multiple linebreaks because of spaces, and spaces are not handeled the same by all browsers and external editors, just because it looks alike on your screen does not mean it does on all people's.  Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 08:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 25 October 2017
Add to avoid the extra space between the third and forth row (i.e. between "Developer(s)" and "Stable release" here). – Srdjan m (talk) 08:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * rowstyle4 = display: none;
 * Denied damaging request. Does not do what the requester intends. —Codename Lisa (talk) 12:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please disregard my last message. I am seeing something in my tests. You are lucky though; your vague language could have costed you a round of rejection. I will investigate the matter.
 * Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not done:. Very sorry. This time, I do see what you ask. Really, I do.
 * However, my principle is that I do not deploy hacks on widely used templates. A simple change in the underlying MediaWiki HTML cleaner can have catastrophic results. Suddenly, the whole versioning data might stop showing up.
 * I will take this matter to the proper venue. Until then, I am certain that a couple of pixels of space won't kill anyone.
 * Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done The proper venue wasn't really helpful, so I am implementing this.
 * Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

repo field default
The repo field, if missing or lacking a value, defaults to an ugly and meaningless http://no%20value. See here for example. Surely a better default would be simply none. With best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. This only happens if the "repository" parameter on WikiData is vandalized or if someone has gone the length of adding the field there with null value, despite all the warnings. If the parameter is entirely missing on WikiData, the infobox just ignores it.
 * All you have to do is to go to the corresponding WikiData item page and remove the "repository" parameter there.
 * Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello . Thanks for your prompt rely. I will look at this in January.  With best wishes.  RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 08:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Relative date calculation wrong
The calculation of a time period between two dates can give incorrect results. Example: memtest86's latest stable release was July 26, 2017, today is January 4 2018, and the infobox reports the time delta as "4 months." But it's over 5 months ago now. 76.99.216.210 (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It says "5 months ago", and the page has lase been changed in November. If you are really seeing "4 months", it is likely a caching issue of your browser; head to the page and press Ctrl+Shift+R on your keyboard to kill and force-refresh your en-Wikipedia.org chache. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 18:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I concur. —Codename Lisa (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

In all the social media websites, there must be login type added.
In all the social media websites, or the websites in which there is login, we must added proper description that how a user can login. like in some social media there is only login by phone number or in some email is only login or in some any of both are valid. There must be Login Type added in Infobox Software. Examples

Login Type - Only by Phone Number Login Type - Only by Email address(or Username) Login Type - Phone Number or Email address(or Username)(Any) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niharpatel123456 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

unknown parameter "frequently updated"
Editing a page with this template I was greeted with Warning: Page using Template:Infobox software with unknown parameter "frequently updated" (this message is shown only in preview). Was there such a para? What happened to it? Palosirkka (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think there ever was, nor do I see any use for such a parameter, past or present. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 08:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Update OS name
Please update the template to use macOS instead of the old names (MAC OS, OS X). --Stefan Weil (talk) 12:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ (assuming this request was for the documentation). + m t  21:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Sorry, I forgot that the documentation is separate – I could have fixed it myself. --Stefan Weil (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Incompatibility (OS) List
Request for subsection for OS Incompatibility. Twillisjr (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Operating system
Could we get some clarity about the OS parameter? Is it meant to apply only to the current stable version, or to all versions? For example, Microsoft Word was originally released under DOS, iirc, but the current version probably won't run on anything under Win 7. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

"Moribund" status - Talk:Apache OpenOffice
Hi, there. I invite everyone to participate in the polite ongoing discussion.

The discussion is at Talk:Apache OpenOffice. --Entalpia2 (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Replacement for "active" in "development status" parameter
Hello, per this your edit, what is your proposed replacement? in the end we need to one word to tell people what is the current status of software!

Editor-1 (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello,
 * I beg to differ. In the last past four month that I have been cleaning up Category:Pages using Infobox software with unknown parameters, I've encountered hundreds of articles whose subjects had long stopped development but their infobox still said "Active", because the editors had lost interest. If the word "Active" appears for both live and dead projects, then we might as well not write it.
 * WP:DATED seems to agree with me. The latest release date and latest release version give an accurate account of the extent to which we know the project was active. We don't know if the developers lost interest the next day, one hundred days later or are still working on it in vain.
 * So, write nothing. The principle in Wikipedia is: Only write what you can prove.
 * Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * By your logic, the parameter should be removed entirely because there is no way to prove that an opensource project that has been abandoned currently won’t restart sometime in the future. 76.123.2.127 (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Removing the status parameter sounds like a good idea to me. We have the discontinued parameter which can be set to the affirmative if we can WP:VERIFY that the software is no longer being developed. &mdash;  Warren.  ‘ talk, 17:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there an issue with large projects that have well maintained pages not being able to indicate being active? A potential solution could be indicating when the information was updated on the article. For example, Development Status: Active (as of April 2018). (BTW there is a discussion regarding what parameter to use for Apache OpenOffice, see Talk:Apache_OpenOffice) Jonpatterns (talk) 06:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I am agree with indicating date of status. {Active (as of April 2018)} Editor-1 (talk) 07:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * That seems like significantly more work than saying nothing at all.... and what does it really contribute to the subject, anyways? If someone reads "Active as of April 2018" in 2021, but there were no releases -- or if there were releases but nobody updated Wikipedia -- what use is that information to a reader?  And then there's trying to define "Active": if an open-source project on Github has no contributions for 3 months because the owner is very ill or merely has nothing to contribute for a while, is that long enough to justify saying the project is no longer "Active"? What about 4 months? Do you measure on the cadence of past releases?  If so, what multiplier of the cadence is correct for indicating a lack of activity?  Is all of this different for closed-source software where it may be harder to get an indicator of whether or not there is ongoing development?


 * Honestly, guys, this sounds like a classic Wikipedia make-work project, where we garnish the subject with editorial license. Software release dates are a strong, effective, and verifiable indicator of that software's active-ness. I don't think we need anything more. &mdash;  Warren.  ‘ talk, 02:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I now support the removal of the 'status' parameter. A lot of energy is used for little/no gain when this parameter is available. For example see Talk:Apache OpenOffice. The 'discontinued' and 'release' parameters are sufficient. Further detail can be given in the text. Jonpatterns (talk) 07:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Codename Lisa has sadly since quit Wikipedia. I agree that that the status parameter is superflous given that user can figure that a release done 10 years ago but was not officially discontinued is obviously no longer supported. If Editor-1 is not majorly opposed to the idea, I can remove the param later today. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 08:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I also support removing this parameter. As I mentioned in the Apache OpenOffice discussion, it's hard to see how a number of the remaining suggestions to fill the parameter are any less likely to become outdated than "Active" is. The parameter has proven to be quite contentions. It can invite contributions that have POV and OR problems. This discussion is quite depressing, but provides a good argument for removing the parameter. Kill it. Gareth (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * And out the door it goes. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 15:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

"language footnote" parameter
Browsing the code of the template, my eyes picked up the "language footnote", wondering "why?". Let me explain, obviously 99.99% of content on Wikipedia must be sourced, but why should we treat langugage count so differently? That is not to say that other items, like version, would be sourced through the same ways, so why not leave refing to the usualy tag formatting (we literally just append the entire paramter to line)? I think it should be removed; thoughts? Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 15:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Which field is suitable for "first version of software"
I can see initial-release-date but it states that the date mentioned there should be v1.0 of the product and says "do not use this field to specify the release date of the first preview/test release of the software product; there is already another parameter for that use". I cannot find another parameter to save this information to. I was editing the Apache Hive page and realized no initial-date was mentioned there. On going through the releases, I saw v1.0 was released on Feb 4, 2015 and v0.3 was on Oct 27, 2010. As there is a 5 year difference we need to capture this somewhere as otherwise a wikipedia user would think that Hive is only 3 years old (Younger than Apache Spark which had v1.0 in 2014 :D ) ... which is not very accurate. AbdealiJK (talk) 07:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * IMO there should not be any such parameter and I'm probably going to remove the sentence from the doc shortly. Regarding which date to put on the page itself, it's probably a matter of definition; e.g. video games are considered released once they hit v1.0 or officially leave early access, but software can be considered released once a download button becomes available. I'd say insert the 2010 date into the infobox. Prose can handle which version there was at the time. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 08:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Possible bug in template?
I just saw something odd with the Template:Infobox software that I've never seen before. If you go to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cocaine_(PaaS)&oldid=849659575, you'll see the Cocaine (PaaS) article the way it was when I first saw it. I made some edits and then clicked preview. It showed two template errors:

Warning: Page using Template:Infobox software with unknown parameter "status" (this message is shown only in preview). Warning: Page using Template:Infobox software with unknown parameter "1 = ?" (this message is shown only in preview).

I easily deleted the status parameter, but couldn't see anything for a "1= ?" parameter. You can replicate this by clicking to edit the old version and then previewing it. I tried several things, and then eventually just copied a whole new infobox in, and cut and pasted the individual parameters one by one to the new infobox. That removed the error. Is it possibly a bug? TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  23:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * At the end of the screenshot line was a stray pipe character, which caused the template (and this would affect every template on MediaWiki) to interpret the content between   and   as a parameter, and because it was unnamed, it was used as a numerical the paramer; furthermore, it was the first therefore it would have been equivalent to , which is resembeled in the error message. And since that parameter had no content at all, the error message transcluded the content as "unkown" or   for short. A quick removal of the character turned the error into void, so to answer your question: Nope, not a bug in the template, just unclean formatting on the article.  Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 07:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I didn't see that. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  17:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Internal release info obscuring external info, thanks to VisualEditor
While I was editing the ZoneAlarm article, I saw something that had seen several times before too: ; Someone had specified a latest release version and latest preview version, obscuring values from Template:Latest stable software release/ZoneAlarm and Template:Latest preview software release/ZoneAlarm.

Now that Wikipedia has Lua, I think we should make a change to rectify this. First, the external value must take precedence. Second, a warning should be displayed in the preview mode (like many other preview-only warnings) that there are two conflicting sources for the article now. Maybe someone like or  can write the script?

5.75.13.185 (talk) 05:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Two things up front: Firstly, Codename Lisa is no longer with us, she quit Wikipedia earlier this year following a 24-hour ban. Secondly, we should not use Lua, since we have a uniformity among infoboxes by using the same backbone template. However, we also should not need to because we can simply use artificial intelligence (lots of if-else conditions) to check whether the external page exists. The question arises, though, if externals should really take precedence; if somebody overwrote the values locally, they probably did it for a reason. I can have a look at it either way, but please let me know why you think the external configuration should have priority. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 06:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I created a sandboxed version that prioritises the externally configured dates, see the testcases page for comparison (both versions use the infobox from ZoneAlamrm as it looked before you moved the dates to the external component). Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 07:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, . :) These external version info templates are often inserted into "Comparison of [...]" and "List of [...]" articles. (I wish had prepared an example for you... 😜. I thought you and CL know this already.) So, when someone just updates the article itself, the consistency is lost. Some registered users may also update the external template without monitoring the article itself not realizing what they do is in vain.
 * But as for your main question: Before VisualEditor came to being, editing Wikipedia needed a lot of knowledge. People either had this infobox-related knowledge or not; in case of the latter, they performed with due regards to the conflict. They knew what they were doing. But now, they have VisualEditor. They just double-click the infobox, in which case, they are gently guided into the trap of adding the conflicting entries for version info.😱
 * What you did here and here is half of what I had in mind. But the other thing that I had in mind is something like this:

{{#ifexist:Template:Latest stable software release/{{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1}}}|{{PAGENAME}}}} {{#if:{{{3|}}} | {{#invoke:Preview warning|main|Conflicting version info specified in the article are overwritten by external source.}} }} ...
 * <... The rest of the code... >
 * This is just an example though; Module:Preview warning is probably the wrong choice here.
 * And Codename Lisa, I hope you are doing fine wherever you are. I'd insert this into your talk page but I don't have edit permission there. 5.53.42.60 (talk) 08:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * CL's talk page is now located at User talk:Renamed user 2560613081, but I'd say it is guaranteed she wouldn't answer if you tried. I'm not sure whether the warning is required or not, but it's worth a shot in the sandbox versions. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 08:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sandboxes and testcases updated. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 08:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... Yes. Clearly the I chose the wrong warning template; we need one that does not indent the message.
 * Alright. That's as far my recommendation goes. Seeing as how I don't have the most basic editing rights I can't do anything else. Thanks for attending. I'll swing by from time to time in case someone needed the only thing I can provide: An idea. Cheers. 5.53.42.60 (talk) 09:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The template sandboxes aren't protected (yet) so IIRC you should be able to just edit them. Either way, I'd recommend you to create an account for that. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 10:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think I am ready to offer Wikipedia the degree of responsibility required from a person who creates an account. Besides, if I am to do anything beyond offering a suggestion here, I need to have additional privileges, which I can only receive after some years of service. (You know, if they add a "user-blocker" privilege, and you get, you'd become a admin!) 5.53.42.60 (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

How to fix broken links inside an infobox
In some articles that use the "infobox software" template, the "website" in the infobox gives a broken link.

For example, when I go to the "Vim" article, I see the infobox includes "Website" item that links to "https://www.vim.org/,%20http://www.vim.org", and when I click on it I get a "not found on this server" error message.

(I see the 1964 (emulator) correctly shows two different links in the "Website" item; how do I get the "Vim" article to do the same thing?).

When I edit the article to try to fix it to link to "https://www.vim.org/", I can't find either the parameter name ("website") or the first part of that parameter value ("https") anywhere inside the infobox template. So it's apparently not fixable inside the Vim article. As far as I can tell it's a problem that can suddenly strike any article that includes this "infobox software" template, without any any changes to the article's wikitext.

How can I fix such broken links inside an infobox? --DavidCary (talk) 01:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * This was a problem at WP:Wikidata that the current infobox software is not set up correctly to handle for some reason. I've removed the offending URL there since the HTTP link should not be present. --Izno (talk) 02:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

License doesn't fetch from Wikidata for Audacity
I had tried to blank out or remove license section from for Audacity (audio editor), but it being removed from article and doesn't fetch from Wikidata page. yurikoles (talk 09:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, this template does not support Wikidata. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 10:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * License it definitely does not. --Izno (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, judging from the code, no field does, not just license. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 14:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Two do: Repository and website. --Izno (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The website tag was just removed from Template:Infobox company (by another user). Would it make sense to take it out here as well? Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 12:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I reverted the change there--that was overkill for the local issue. --Izno (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

29 October 2018 Issues?
Unsure if has broken some articles where there was no repo= entry in the Software Infobox. Examples Topofusion and SPINE (software). Obviously if I am correct these will self fix when the template is fixed. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , should be fixed now. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 09:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Certainly has fixed the two use cases I was currently interested in. (Whether any other problems I cannot tell ... this is simply because I am not doing a comprehensive regression test over a range of articles).  Thankyou.  Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Release date of the first preview/test release
Under "Initial release date": "do not use this field to specify the release date of the first preview/test release of the software product; there is already another parameter for that use." But which one? (I can see the latest preview, but not the first preview.) Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Repository
Hello! Looks like `Repository` is broken: look at the malformed link at Nginx.

Wikidata item looks correct, with two separate entries.--RoadTrain (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , problem was that the template selected all properties from Wikidata. I now changed it to just getting the first one, will see if I can implement a method to list all, but this is presently the best solution. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 17:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

(solved) Move all release data outside article
Does Template:Infobox software applies to all software article? If so, shall we add a tracking category for software that explicitly specify versions? (Possibly related to Template talk:LSR/Archive 1.) --Franklin Yu (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , it can be used where necessary, but is not mandatory. For example, software that only released on one more two platforms usually does not use them. A tracking category is not necessary as they do not need to be "fixed". Regards. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 21:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Thanks. --Franklin Yu (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata FAQ Issue
The FAQ states that as of 2016 the Wikidata software versions couldn't be specified by platform or cited correctly. As far as I can tell, both seems possible now. There are qualifiers for platforms in the version statement, and other all versions are cited by url. So is this resolved now, or, if not, should we update the FAQ to 2018? --Kristbaum (talk) 02:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Both are possible, and seems to me to be (somewhat?) common now :-). wikidata:User:Github-wiki-bot fills out these two pieces of information; also, projects like repology most likely encourage more software version information to be added in Wikidata, and can be used to help ensure correct version information is being added. --Hhm8 (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In the German Wiki most software related items seem to use it and there seems to be adequate citation. I would really be in favour of giving this another chance.Kristbaum (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , could you link to the implementation on dewiki? We might be able to replicate it here. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 01:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. Here is the Infobox Software and here is an example and here is another example. Kristbaum (talk) 08:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So what do you think ? --Kristbaum (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , works technically, however, I'm not confident yet about the citation formatting. Using the sandbox version I made on NewPipe produces the formatting "reference URL: https://github.com/TeamNewPipe/NewPipe/releases/tag/v0.14.2, retrieved: October 27, 2018, title: Release 0.14.2, publication date: October 27, 2018". I will have to see if there is a proper way to do it. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 17:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Problems with handling of repository information
At The Unarchiver, I ran into an issue where even when an "end time" attribute was set in the past for the repository URL, it was still shown as the current value by the template. Similarly, when it was given "no value" with the preferred rank, it produced a link to "http://none/". In both situations, the row should presumably be suppressed from display automatically. (It doesn't seem possible to suppress it manually by adding an empty |repo= value here.) I made this workaround change for now, so it's not really an urgent problem for this article, but it does seem like the template should handle these cases more gracefully. Thanks! —&#123;&#123;u&#124;Goldenshimmer&#125;&#125;｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 10:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've fixed this in the template. If you remove the value currently at The Unarchiver the template should display "none" with the pencil next to it. Jc86035 (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! Do you think that's preferable over not showing the row at all? It seems like it might be unnecessary to display a row just to say that there's no repository. Thanks! —&#123;&#123;u&#124;Goldenshimmer&#125;&#125;｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 15:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better to show the old values as well, but I don't know how to do that. Maybe ask at Template talk:Wikidata or Module talk:WikidataIB. Jc86035 (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 February 2019
Please do the following changes
 * Infobox software/stacked: Latest Last release(s) → Final release(s) (two instances)
 * Infobox software/simple: Latest  Last release    → Final release

"Last" is ambigous with "latest", "final" resolves this. Please note that a previous request for this by went unnoticed. Paradoctor (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC) Paradoctor (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * ❌. "Final" implies that there will be no future versions of that software. This would be misleading for software that is continously developed on. "Latest" refers to the most recently released version, which is more what we want to express. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 10:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ I initially misunderstood your request because it appeared as though you wanted to have "Latest" changed to "Final". I assume these are typos. The templates are now fixed. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 10:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Gah! Sorry about the confusion. Paradoctor (talk) 11:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Allowing long labels to break onto a second line with an optional parameter
There are some cases where the infobox label area is much larger than necessary. For example Operating system makes the width of the label column extremely wide. It would be helpful to allow the label column to "wrap" so it would look like this: I know this is technically possible, but before I write it up I wanted to make sure there was support to include this option. Please let me know if any of this is unclear. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 16:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Operating system

More use of wikidata
This template should use more data form wikidata as done ine the french version https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod%C3%A8le:Infobox_Logiciel

This allow to update latest release and other things in one place instead of editing the page in all translations.

--Agouti (talk) 08:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Merging Template:Infobox web browser
I made changes in the sandbox to support the merger of Template:Infobox web browser per this TfD. The discussion only mentioned bringing over the  parameter, but I also transferred the   parameter as well since the web browser infoboxes use it and it seems useful for other software. --Abgnac (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , it appeared as though the engine parameter was broken due to a missing pipe within the if-check at the end of the line beginning with data8. Note that engines was working fine. I believe to have fixed it (diff), so please review my changes before I push it to live. Regards, Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 18:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Good catch. It appears to be working correctly now. --Abgnac (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Aight. ✅. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 18:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Multiple website values
Integrated Performance Primitives website link renders incorrectly because P856 property for WikiData entry used on that page has multiple values. From the discussion page, it seems that the property does not have single value constrain intentionally, and this template has to be changed to support multiple values. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamNikita (talk • contribs) 23:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding development status for compatibility with Template:Infobox web browser
Copy the sandbox content to the main template. I added the development status parameter for compatability with Template:Infobox web browser which is currently being merged into this template after a TfD. This parameter seems to have been forgotten in the main merger performed by. -- Trialpears (Talk) 22:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Add Maintainers field
Hello, some projects (especially open source) have maintainers. They don't need to be the original author. Can someone add this field? --Emil Engler (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to Add a field to link to Changelog or release Notes
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tech201805 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

website parameter - consider adding archive url property (P1065)
In Netscape_Navigator website is dead (archive.netscape.com). I've added archive url (Property:P1065), but infobox doesn't use that wikidata property. End time could be recognized as well (both "archive url" and "end time" wikidata qualifiers are suggested when changed website property is being tried to publish). MarMi wiki (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Version Number and Wikidata
The excuse given in the FAQ about not using Wikidata for version numbers is bogus. Wikidata is a centralized source, and any vandalism will be visible in ALL lingual editions of wikipedia, not only the english one. This means also, that it is much faster noticed and corrected in Wikidata. There is really no point in not using Wikidata for such data. --91.89.138.29 (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Infobox title vs page title and redirections
I migrated Cura (software) to use the "Template:Latest stable software release" system for specifying the version number. The page title is "Cura (software)" but the infobox title is simply "Cura". When I first created the template, I used Template:Latest stable software release/Cura (software) but then moved it to Template:Latest stable software release/Cura when the former didn't work. However, now when I press "[±]" to edit the latest version, it opens the redirect page, not the final page. Is there some way of specifying which page gets opened when "[±]" is pressed?S-1-5-7 (talk) 05:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove " (software)" from article parameter (leave only "Cura"). MarMi wiki (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

sanity check for the discontinued parameter
must be  or omitted. Instead, the article Adobe Flash passed the URL of Adobe's announcement of future deprecation and end of life: it was not shown in the infobox, instead as a ref without the usual link. Please consider adding a red error at runtime for the wrong parameter usage, as seen for other templates. It would have been helpful to spot the problem earlier. --151.70.49.182 (talk) 08:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Why P1324 and P408 are special case?
I couldn't figure out. --Ｔｅｓｔｍｅｎｔ７７７ (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "Special case" in what way? They don't seem "special" to me at all. MarMi wiki (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Adding Alexa To Google
There is an issue when adding  to Google. It is acting as an invalid parameter.

WeTalk</b><b style="color:black">Wiki</b> 14:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Add support status field
Software generally has a support period, where if a user is using a supported version then they can reasonably assume that bugs will be fixed or addressed as they arise. This information is of general interest to people who are reading the article for a piece of software. Some more specialised software templates have a field for this (such as a the support_status field in Template:Infobox OS version) but this generic software infobox template does not have such a field. I think we should add an optional support_status field in line with the one used in infobox OS version et al. which can be used to list the versions of software that are supported. Thoughts? --Deskana (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Support. Came here for the same. And would say we need a "End-of-life date" field. Tabdiukov (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I made a prototype modification in my userspace, User:Deskana/infobox software, which seems to be working just fine on User:Deskana/infobox software/kubernetes. I'll probably copy it over here in the next few days. --Deskana (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not a fan whatsoever of covering parameters in this template (or apparently in the other) which need routine changing/maintenance like this one. The general reader is one who doesn't understand what the software is or does, not one who cares about the version numbers that are indicated, and that reader is also not served by this information. --Izno (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Adding parameter 'number of users' to the template
The infobox is used in pages of most of the apps and software pages. I propose the addition a new parameter  (number of users) to the template. The parameter will depict number of active registered users. - Sanyam.wikime (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's too vague. Not all users are "registered users". And it is too difficult to have reliable information. Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

"Publisher" section
Can we add a section for a publisher? "Original author" just isn't a true description for some publishers. AntiGravityMaster (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Empty "Usage" section
Recently, an empty "Usage" section displays in the infobox in many articles, for example PuTTY, Far Manager or Firefox. Can you please take a look? I do not have the privileges to edit this template. --Prikryl (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed here. Nardog (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Prikryl (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata website info
Was it really such a smart idea to automatically pull in official websites from Wikidata? I've just been tearing my hair out trying to remove a link that has become an attack site. It is not obvious where it is coming from. I really don't see the point of storing this on Wikidata. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 11:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * While I think it is a good idea to pull this information from Wikidata, it needs to be more clearly/prominently documented. Also, the current implementation doesn't handle items with multiple websites correctly.  Take a look at Node.js for example.  --Alex Rosenberg (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Update: The multiple website bug was fixed by IceWelder --Alex Rosenberg (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you clarify that other than repo the data is meant for binary/end user versions?
Some programs might have a source code version that is newer than the actual release/binary.

I assume it applies more for independent developers due to various reasons such as: I saw such a case in which an editor entered the latest release version/date and license of the source code rather than the binary.
 * 1) They don't care for source code QA (which is "nice to have") like they care for end user QA (which is a must and lack of it might cause abandonment of the program and bad press).
 * 2) They care more for developers than for end users.

Since this is Wikipedia and not development hub, will you consider adding a verification that all fields, other than repo, are meant for binary/end user releases?

-Cardace (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Issues with "platform" parameter
Bash_(Unix_shell) now has an extra Platform section, linked to Video game under "Usage", as does Godot_(game_engine), although I assume the link to Computing platform is the extra one in that case. I assume this is a side effect from merging with Template:Infobox video game engine in Special:MobileDiff/951532688, so pinging in hopes you know a way to untangle them! (I assume some sort of conditional is needed to swap out the label depending on the type of article, and remove the second platform parameter definition, but don't know how to surely distinguish one from the other at first glance, and it's too late at night to try writing code in a language I don't know anyway...) Thanks in advance! —&#123;&#123;u&#124;Goldenshimmer&#125;&#125; (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 02:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This has been fixed: Special:MobileDiff/953026477. Thanks! —&#123;&#123;u&#124;Goldenshimmer&#125;&#125; (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 05:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 May 2020
Can we add belowstyle and below to add footnotes for apps. Smithr32 (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Some unnecessary game engine fields
Through the merger of, this template has received various field relating to video game engines, however, some of these seem rather unnecessary: I would advocate removing all of these, with emphases on the first three. Thoughts? IceWelder &#91; &#9993; &#93; 11:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Main genre(s): An engine usually does not have a fixed genre. With proprietary engines, the dominant genre using it usually stems from the developers' preference, not the engine's limitations. Engines that are available to the public (Unity, Unreal Engine, GameMaker, etc.) can have endless genres, depending on how the thousands of potential developers use it. There usually is no single "main genre" that an engine could be reduced to.
 * Major game(s):. With proprietary engines, these would be all of the handful of games the engines' developers created themselves. Publicly available engines could list thousands of possible games. Reducing them to just a few cherry-picked entries constitutes original research.
 * Latest game: Unlike Infobox video game series, wherein this parameter would only need to be updated once every few years, games using a particular engine tend to be released every other week, or even more frequently with more popular engines (Unity's developers claim that half of all games user their engine). Using Unity as an example, not only would we need to index every new (notable) game that uses it, we would have to constantly update this field. This is unnecessary work and also prone to vandals inserting their games ("List of ENGINE games" articles are already polluted frequently).
 * Removing these would only leave Earliest game, which has similar problems as the "Latest game" parameter. It is rather difficult (let alone verifiable) to point out the very first game to use an engine that has been available to the public for years. GameMaker used to list Clean Asia! as its first. Clean Asia! was released in "ca. 2007" (I have since fixed this), the same year as Mondo Medicals, so it was unclear which game released first. Furthermore, GameMaker was first released in 1999, and I would doubt that it saw no game released for eight years straight. Again, original research is at play here. If there really is one identifiable and verifiable first game, it should be mentioned in the body instead.
 * The consensus after the TfD was to delete the template and replace it with Infobox software (see Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_18) Christian75 (talk) 08:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the merger situation (which is the first statement in my original comment). These fields had the same issues on the old template but there was no review, and the template only survived a couple of days. There was consensus to delete the template, but it was merged instead. There was no consensus to keep these specific fields. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 09:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I can see the thread in the TFD that lead to a merge rather than full deletion, but I can also see how some of the discussion might have been misinterpreted to lead to that conclusion. ? --Izno (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Couldn't rightly say why I merged instead of replacing the transclusions. What I can say is that when I do merge, I prefer to do as little on-article editing, which is why I converted it to a redirect (I only needed to make one article-space edit after the merge was complete). I clearly misread the close, and I therefore see no prejudice against undoing my merge on this template. Let me know if I can be of any further assistance (e.g. using my bot to update the transclusions). Primefac (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've boldly removed the field as there was no opposition. Primefac, if you have the time, could you configure PrimeBOT to remove the four former fields? IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 15:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Primefac (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Discontinued not used when containing a reference
discontinued

For technical reasons, anything for this parameter has the same effect, be it "yes", "no" or anything else. To nullify the effect of this parameter, you need to omit it. Actually, that's not true. If you include a reference (in order to prove, at least to editors, that it wasn't declared in vain) then it nullify this parameter as if you omitted it. -Cardace (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Taking more data from wikidata
As of this writing, only engine, website and repo are taken from wikidata.

Will you consider also taking from there publication date (date of first release), software version identifier, etc.?

Otherwise, people just add duplicated info (same data, and possibly even references for this data, in wikidata and Wikipedia in multiple languages), which is inefficient, time consuming and might also cause inconsistencies.

-Cardace (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi there,

I have an idea for the Software and Operating system Infoboxes, but I should discuss it for its possible bugs and side effects here.

What do you think about fetching the "Software(or OS) latest(preview) version" and "Software(or OS) release(preview) date" data from Wiki Commons items(WikiData)? In the following Infoboxes

Template:Infobox software

and

Template:Infobox OS

As such this is the case for "Repository" URI item.

I should note that "version" and "date" is a frequently changing item, and this idea has the advantage that with one change in this (WikiData) item, all Wiki Infoboxes (in all languages English, Dutch,German, Persian, Arabic, Chinese, etc.) change at once, only by a single modifying.

Are there any problems (or bug producing) with this idea?

Thanks, Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You're not the only one with this idea. See above as this this was already asked. Now we just need someone to agree to implement it. -Cardace (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, I don't have permission to edit this template page, but it is so simple and elementary, just like these codes:


 * Simply change "repo" to "software version(date)", and change "#property:P1324" to an item in WikiData.


 * Thanks again, Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 08:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * But it is possibly better to make a "secondary template" named something like "Template:articleTemplateData_Or_WikiData" that takes as argument "version/releaseData data" and "WikiData ID" and checks article's TemplateData, if it is empty, then checks WikiData and outputs something like the above codes, therefore, some "template" does the above mentioned code.
 * "Template:articleTemplateData_Or_WikiData" should have two parameters (1) Article template data (may be empty) and (2) ID of and item in WikiData.
 * Also "Simple Infobox" and "Stacked Infobox" takes as input data something from this "second template"'s output.
 * Thanks again. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 05:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

This is also a good idea to implement. Would some one take care of this idea, at least for «Infobox software/simple»?

Thanks again. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Lead developers vs developers?
If one has a source for a name of a lead developer on a piece of software, but there are many other developers as well, how would one phrase that in the infobox? JimKaatFan (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * parentheses have been used, such as "Jacob Mentor (lead)". Hope this helps!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 02:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Better control for wikidata (disable or alternative QID)
When an article mentions forks or bindings, multiple instances of this template may be used to refer to different pieces of software. This creates a problem as the same wikidata entry is used for all these boxes, filling incorrect values for stuff like website and repository link. There should be a way to either disable wikidata-taking or to specify another QID.

I checked the documentation for the wikibase parserfunctions, and it seems that neither option is not hard to implement. To make another ID available, just add  to all the invocations of the parser func (an empty value gives the same behavior as not specifying one in this case). To disable the taking all together, just add  to all the if-empty-then-wikidata checks like. And of course we can do both.--Artoria2e5 <small style="font-weight:lighter">🌉 02:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Please apply the following diff to the source code of the template:

The template documentation should be updated to include qid as a string type value. When it is "none", it disables all wikidata fetching by pretending there is a value in "if". When it is a valid QID, it causes the corresponding QID to be used instead (adds to the expensive count, but it's necessary). When it is empty, the default value of the page's QID will be used. (Google "online diff patch" for some in-browser stuff if you don't have the patch tool.) --Artoria2e5 <small style="font-weight:lighter">🌉 02:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The usual way to illustrate your proposed changes is to make your changes to the Template:Infobox software/sandbox. Can you please do that? Also, it looks like this template uses a lot of if statements that might not be necessary. Please take a look at Infobox person/Wikidata, which may have the functionality you are proposing without all of the logical tests. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ditto that request. Consider syncing the sandbox to the main template first. Feel free to reactivate/provide a new edit request after doing so. --Izno (talk) 04:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Synced the sandbox and applied the changes. Added a new testcase for qid. --Artoria2e5 <small style="font-weight:lighter">🌉 13:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I added some more testcases, but I am unable to see any differences when I use different options for qid. Am I doing something wrong? Please modify the Chrome testcases that I have added such that they demonstrate the new features that you are attempting to add. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am marking this request as answered pending feedback on the testcases. Feel free to reactivate it after pointing out what I am doing wrong. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * My friend Jonesey95, of course the Chrome testcases appear the same with or without QID! All the fields that would have used Wikidata already have a provided value, so why did you expect that to kick in? I removed the website value in the cases with QID so you can see it. --Artoria2e5 <small style="font-weight:lighter">🌉 17:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

for update. --Artoria2e5 <small style="font-weight:lighter">🌉 12:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅, and thank you for your patience! Please update the template documentation as needed.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 02:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Use of Alexa in infoboxes
Watchers of this page may be interested in. Izno (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Bogus website?
The PSPP article shows several bogus websites ... and smushes them all into one link. It seems like the code in this template to pull the official website from WikiData is broken. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I see one link in "Repository" and one link in "Website", and they both work fine. What are you seeing that appears to be broken? – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Date format for releases
At OpenSSL I presume this template gets release dates invisibly from Wikidata since no such parameters are specified. Unfortunately these are presented with two different date formats (mdy for latest and dmy for preview), and I can't figure out how to make them consistently mdy. Can someone help? Hairy Dude (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Website URL - wikidata rank beng ignored
On the article cURL the infobox pulls all URLs from the wikidata item. It should only pull the preferred rank URL (i.e. the currently URL) rather than the normal ranked URL. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Visible on an old version -https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CURL&oldid=988008197 - I'm going to set the URL in the template on the wikipedia side for the live version. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Cite has empty unknown parameter: |date6=
on Microsoft OneDrive emits error "Cite has empty unknown parameter: |date6=", populates Category:CS1 errors: empty unknown parameters, and is not easily found. Please correct. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * may know best how to do so. --Izno (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * with this edit. Petscan can help find templates in CS1 maint categories. Note that sometimes the error is shown only on the template page itself because a parameter is invalid there but works fine when the template is transcluded, so the template page should not be "fixed". Ping me if you have any questions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Doesn't <!-- ></!--> make it look like date6 is a valid parameter? Why not just delete?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Noted. date6 belonged outside the cite template, which I subconsciously saw but did not fix correctly. Now fixed in a better way. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 31 December 2020
When it links "Preview release" to Software_release_life_cycle, (as it does from, e.g. Active Agenda) it should be tweaked to link to Software_release_life_cycle instead. 50.201.195.170 (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done if this is controversial for some reason, I will revert on request &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Specify that it is still maintained, albeit without new releases
Extending  I suppose is one option… for example there hasn't been a new Tiny_C_Compiler] release in 3 years, but the repo is still active https://repo.or.cz/w/tinycc.git  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Marks (talk • contribs) 06:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Might hinge on WP:OR, depending on what you consider active. Last commit pushed two months ago? One random pull requested after two years of staleness? The current parameter might have the same problem, even. One way or another, I would even support removing stuff like preview versions (or versions in general), which have to be updated frequently with no real benefit to the reader. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 11:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Date format
I can't quite figure out what's going on at Signal (software), but I assume the instance of this infobox there is pulling the most recent value of wikidata:Property:P348 for the stable and preview release params. Is there a way for me to make it display Start date and age in those params in dmy as opposed to mdy format? It defaults to mdy and I don't know how to change it without manually inputting all the data, which for obvious reasons I would prefer not to do. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, it seems asked a similar question a while ago. I'm also perplexed at the FAQ above, which suggests that the template doesn't pull release versions from Wikidata … In which case I'm even more confused, because I don't know where the info is coming from! AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The data is taken from this (stable) and this (preview) template page. It's an ages-old implementation that works but is somewhat archaic. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 07:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 March 2021
The display of the "Screenshot" dropdown bar should look like the one at Template:Infobox website (which looks better, in my opinion). I have implemented the change in this sandbox revision, and the test cases look as intended. — Goszei (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * curious about this one. Not sure a collapsible is better in an infobox, but if it is, I would think you'd show an example on the test cases page that depicts a screenshot when the reader clicks "show". Also, if there is no screenshot, as is the case in some examples on the test cases page, I would think that it would become invisible in those cases. Is that viable and doable? You might need a consensus for this edit. And Infobox website might need to be changed to an uncollapsed screenshot version. Collapsibility in iboxes is possibly a controversial issue.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 11:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think there's been a bit of a misunderstanding. This template already has a collapsible feature/parameter, and I have just changed how the dropdown bar looks.
 * JJMC89 bot removed the (non-free, oops) images I put in the test cases before you took a look. That did make me realize that I forgot to account for the "no screenshot" case though, which I have now fixed. — Goszei (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ – forgot about the non-free screenshot thing. We can see how other editors respond to it. Noticed you also removed some Alexa stuff; since you didn't explain that I didn't include it. Thank you very much for your improvements!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 00:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ – forgot about the non-free screenshot thing. We can see how other editors respond to it. Noticed you also removed some Alexa stuff; since you didn't explain that I didn't include it. Thank you very much for your improvements!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 00:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Wrong hyperlink
Hi, the "tools" argument hyperlink is now pointing to Game development tool which is wrong and should be pointed to Software tool, please modify this link to the correct link. i.e. change to

Thanks, Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 09:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a redirect to Programming tool. Still want it changed? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Much better than Game, and more relevant. I think is correct.Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The documentation does designate the field to be used for game development tools. The only articles that use it as far as I can find are Dark Engine, Rockstar Advanced Game Engine, and Windows Registry, the first two of which do use it as intended by the documentation (apparently it was added as a result of a merger with ). The latter just lists related executables (added by you), which are certainly not programming tools and don't strike me as information so vital as to be included in the infobox. Nardog (talk) 12:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this could just be removed. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 12:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not agree with you, programming tools are very important, e.g., for databases, instant messengers etc. Software tools are like tools in mechanics e.g. Screwdriver or Wrench. Choosing the correct one should be mentioned in their Infoboxs. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 12:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Important or not, the executables you listed in Windows Registry are certainly not programming tools as defined in Programming tool. Nardog (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Why not, we use a tool like RegEdit.exe for create or visit registry items (create and debug), and use Cfgback.exe for backup (maintain), and poledit.exe for editing policies(maintain). This use is according to this definition :"A programming tool or software development tool is a computer program that software developers use to create, debug, maintain, or otherwise support other programs and applications.". Isn't that? Note that by definition "Windows Registry" is a database and so is a software (or program or application). Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 12:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * But that is not a programming tool. The programming tool is what was used to develop the registry itself. The original definition for tools were tools that shipped with a game engine, where game development tool would have been correct. Given the ambiguity around the field and its apparent original research use, I still advocate deletion of the entire field. That you can use RegEdit to edit registry entries is not infobox material. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 13:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As I know "Windows Registry" itself is written by C programming language and some of its libraries. Is C or its library a tool? No, I think "programming language" is not a tool, but tool is an "application" or "computer program" as this is explicitly mentioned in the definition of programming tool. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "Programming tool" would be e.g. CLion or Eclipse but this is rarely documented and can, for most software products, change at any time. "Programming language" is a separate parameter. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 13:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You are completely right. But this sentences also exists in the "Windows Registry" article:

Here the writer of article is mentioning what sort of tool? Some how "utility tool" but not a programming tool. But we do not have an utility tool article in the English Wikipedia. Here I think the hyperlink should be removed and the "tool" word becomes "Utility tool". Do you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk • contribs) 14:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Windows Registry can be edited manually using programs such as RegEdit.exe, although these tools do not expose some of the registry's metadata such as the last modified date.
 * 2) Optional and/or third-party tools similar to RegEdit.exe are available for many Windows CE versions.
 * 3) The Reg.exe and RegIni.exe utility tools are included in Windows XP and later versions of Windows.
 * 4) Registry permissions can be manipulated through the command line using RegIni.exe and the SubInACL.exe 'tool.
 * 5) . Another way is to use the Windows Resource Kit Tool, Reg.exe by executing it from code,[24] although this is considered poor programming practice.
 * 6) Windows 98 and Windows ME include command line (Scanreg.exe) and GUI (Scanregw.exe) registry checker tools to check and fix the integrity of the registry, create up to five automatic regular backups by default and restore them manually or whenever corruption is detected.
 * 7) The Windows 95 CD-ROM included an Emergency Recovery Utility (ERU.exe) and a Configuration Backup Tool (Cfgback.exe) to back up and restore the registry.
 * 8) The policy file is created by a free tool by Microsoft that goes by the filename poledit.exe for Windows 95/Windows 98 and with a computer management module for Windows NT.
 * The infobox should not be stuffed with random tools that can be used with certain software or systems, that was never the point of the parameter (which also was never discussed for inclusion in the first place). Game development tool was somewhat well-defined, programming tool already is not, and changing it to "utility tool" (which is also a bad name) will just invite vandals to promote their own tools that could be used in conjunction with any software. I still favor deletion of the parameter altogether, as its inclusion was never discussed and its proper use is very limited. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 15:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You are right, I am now agree with you, I believe deleting is reasonable. You can now decide to delete this argument. Thanks, Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅. Please remove from the documentation &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Rename "Original author(s)" to "Creator(s)"?
"Software creator" seems to be a common expression. fgnievinski (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I oppose this change, and think it's fine as it is. If you think a change is necessary, a non-loaded phrase would be "Original developer(s)". DesertPipeline (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Import more from WikiData
Hello folks,

i know using WikiData is a big change in the way of working, but it is worth the effort. Especially having in mind our declining active user base.

In many lingual editions of Wikipedia (Spanish, Portuguese, German, French, ...) most content of the software infobox is pulled from WikiData. This makes for a huge workload reduction. And it works great now, e.g. :de:Everything and Everything

Also it is suggested very often:
 * 1) Version Number and Wikidata
 * 2) Taking more data from wikidata
 * 3) License doesn't fetch from Wikidata for Audacity
 * 4) Date format - Archaic workaround with a template to ease work.
 * 5) use wikidata for developer, license by default

And this Template talk:Infobox software/FAQ is outdated. It's being displayed at the header of this discussion-page. (Explanation why it is outdated)

One reason the English Wikipedia lags behind in implementing was the opposition of User:Codename Lisa.

What's your opinion?

--Alex42 (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to create a demonstration in the sandbox. For some example code, take a look at Infobox telescope. Remember that all information imported into infoboxes from Wikidata must cite a reliable source. The easiest way to ensure that is to use Module:WikidataIB in its default configuration. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Job hard to complete
The question is on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Job_hard_to_complete. Category:Latest stable software release templates have a lot of versions to update... What can be done to simplify the work? I think to transfer to Wikidata, it is very simple to manage the release versions on Wikidata. You can check this source code. On the Italian Wikipedia, the template Software have the Stable release parameter with empty value, the value come from Wikidata. Maybe on the Infobox software template could be use template for call version value from Wikidata. And I attempted to repost the question for improve visibility, but the repost was deleted. If I cant repost the question, nobody can see the question and will be remain without answer forever... 93.35.184.189 (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

add article to Category:Discontinued software if discontinued=yes?
Would it make sense to add the article to Category:Discontinued software if the discontinued field is set? Ixfd64 (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably not, per WP:TEMPLATECAT. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Author and Developers
Both the Author and Developer parameters caused links to redirects, so I've moved them to their eventual target to avoid the redirect. Notably, they both go to Programmer. Do we really need two different parameters for the same thing? Maybe one is meant to be a company (or team) and the other an individual, or small list of individuals? -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Please make EditAtWikidata inline with Repository URL
Hi, Wikidata fetched "repository URL" data item can be inline with pen shaped EditAtWikidata, see CodeMirror article and its Infobox and "Repository data item" to see what I mean (they are not inline now), this pen shaped EditAtWikidata item can be inline with repository URL to save space, i.e., via changing the following code: into this code: Note that this change causes the software Infobox to become more compact and so more beautiful. Thanks, Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 09:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, all the below articles have a redundant "newline" in Infobox and its "Repository" data item:


 * 1) npm (software)
 * 2) pip (package manager)
 * 3) APTonCD
 * 4) RPM Package Manager
 * 5) Composer (software)
 * 6) Synaptic (software)
 * 7) Node.js
 * and etc. Pen shaped EditAtWikidata can be inline with the URL. Am I right? Would you please do this code change? Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 04:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit Proposal
I want to add a new parameter, slogan = which displays it's slogan. Leomk0403 (talk) 02:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Slogans and mottos have generally been removed from infoboxes in recent years.  – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

What does qid do?
I didn't any changes when I tried to add it. I tried to write id with q and without so I don't understand format of this field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DustDFG (talk • contribs) 15:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It fetches values for repo, engine, and website from Wikidata if those values are not provided. You can see it in action at american fuzzy lop (fuzzer), where repo and website are not provided in the infobox, but they are displayed anyway. There are more automated ways to retrieve this data, but the template would have to be rewritten a bit, in part because it does not currently comply with the 2018 RFC requiring reliable sources for all infobox data fetched from Wikidata. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 January 2022
It seems that some of my request was lost...

Could you change in the Template code:

sizedefault=300x64px > sizedefault=64px

maxsize=300x64px > maxsize=300px

A computer icon (called "logo" here), is always "square".

Template:Infobox_software documentation "Size of the logo. Defaults to 64px."; please add "Max size is 300px."

Antoine Legrand (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌. Logos do not need to be desktop icons nor are they always square. Bash (Unix shell) is one such example. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 21:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 February 2022
Could the [show] collapsible button be placed to the right (preferably right-aligned) of List of languages?

This design seems to be done in. In my opinion it looks better that way. ZaidhaanH (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅.  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 15:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)