Template talk:Infobox conditionals

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• Template:Infobox
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Template talk:Infobox

Untitled

Listed on deletion review, because the premise of the Tfd is no longer true. It was "only" redirected and not deleted, nevertheless the Tfd was invalidated by later events with Template:Infobox(edit talk links history). -- Omniplex 20:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion review discussion can be found here. The status quo was endorsed. Rossami (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or there at the moment, DRV archive links are apparently tricky. -- Omniplex 02:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Busted?

This template seems completely wrong. You need to use #ifeq, not #if, to see if a parameter is empty or not. And to put the pipes inside the #ifeq block, using Template:! seems to be the way to go.

No, '#if' evaluates to true if a parameter is set (even if set 'blank') and false if the parameter is not set. --CBD 11:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

td

Why use HTML like

<td>

instead of {{!}}? --WISo 11:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly a stylistic preference. The parserfunctions assume that any | characters are defining the next parameter for the function... rather than something like |- being properly evaluated as table markup. Some people prefer to get around that by using

<tr>

HTML and the like, while others prefer to 'hide' the pipe character in the {{!}} template. --CBD 11:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I know, but why use HTML syntax (I think it's almost deprecated) instad of wiki syntax? Maybe because <td> is faster than a template trasduction? --WISo 23:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

|- if or if |-

is better to place the if stantment before of after |- ? --WISo 11:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally it is better to have the condition before the row. Otherwise you may end up with a dozen very thin 'empty' rows if the text in each is suppressed but the rows were created anyway. --CBD 11:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the example is wrong --WISo 23:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No hard feelings, but after several hours trying to learn from this template (and learning parser from somewhere else), I have to request someone to delete it or modify it. It doesn't even remotely do what it claims. It probably works great in Mediawiki servers or under some other specific systems or software, but for a any normal commercially hosted wiki like mine, you need to explain way more before using it as an example. --68.227.57.27 (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected

This template was changed to a redirect on 2010-01-18 per the discussion. —EncMstr (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]