Template talk:Infobox building/Archive 1

Archive 1

Historic building, Skyscraper, ...

It seems quite strange that there are more fields in this template than in the more specialized Historic building template; it also diverges from the more specialized Skyscraper template. Should those be superset of this one? MrRedwood 23:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

parameters

Can someone add style and cost parameters to this?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 11:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see an Acoustical Engineer parameter added to the template - acousticians play an important part (arguably the most important) for many concert halls and performance spaces. Anechoic Man (talk) 04:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

coordinates bug

Even when coordinate data is present in the template, no map link is being generated. This is confusing to AnomeBot. Can anyone fix this? --Stepheng3 (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

automatic adding to Categories, if Baroque & Germany > add to the Cateory:Baroque architecture in Germany

Hi! Some other templates (i.e. Uncategorized), when used, are able to automatically add the page into a category. This template (Template:Infobox building or Template:Infobox Historic building) is able to collect data, so let's use the data: Let the template adds the page to the propper category.

I.e. we get:

|location_town=Berlin
|location_country=Germany
|style=Baroque

...so, let the Template tries to find the proper Category:Baroque buildings in Berlin, or if this specific is not found, to find less specific Category:Baroque buildings in Germany or finally the least specific default Category:Baroque architecture,

and to add the Page with this Template to the Category.

...for the future

There are already lots of buildings in this general Category (and even more buildings, which are not categorized at all: Unsolvable this way). So, the next step can be, that bots will use the "catalogizing tree of IFs" to be applied on the pages of the default Category, so to shake them down deeper to the geographical hierarchy tree. Oashi (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Just speaking from experience, but the first step would be to make a list of the styles, the country subs of the styles, and the town subs. At that point, you have a good idea how to attack the parsing, and if you're going to use "if"s or "switch"es.

And this is something that can be done through the template. Though there may be issues with how "architectural_style" and "location" currently work. - J Greb (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, it will be useful to follow the Sort string instead of the original title of the Article: [[Category:Article's category|'''''Sort string''''']] So, this should resolve many 'parsing' problems, I believe. ;)

I assume, that there is a way how to page.getSortStringForTheCategory(Category), isn't it? I do not know, how to get it...

Curious: Where could I find the API reference (for this wiki-script)? ;) Oashi (talk) 09:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

hrm... generally, what I'd wind up using is [[Category:{{{style|}}} buildings in {{{location|}}}|{{{sort|{{PAGENAME}}}}}]] as part of an #if or #switch built into the infobox template. The only real downside is that the cat markup winds up "hidden" in the articles. - J Greb (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Alt text

Can somebody add an alt text field to the infobox? The reason is it's now part of the FA criteria to include alt text and at the moment there's no way to include alt text for the static image in the infobox. Nev1 (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

OK... should be defaulting to the "caption" field. A more specific/different description can be entered at "alttxt". - J Greb (talk) 02:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The alt text should not default to the caption, because alt text and captions have quite different functions and typically they do not overlap; see WP:ALT #What not to specify. Typically it's better to have no alt text than an alt text equal to the caption, because that avoids useless repetition of the same info to the visually impaired who is using a screen reader. That is what similar infobox templates like {{Infobox film}} do. Also, other templates that have this argument typically call it "alt" rather than "alttxt", since it's called "alt" in the image syntax. I suggest further improving this template by installing this sandbox patch to default the alt text to empty (actually, to "alttxt"'s value if set, for backward compatibility; and then to empty otherwise). Eubulides (talk) 09:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

hrm...

With the caption, I agree in hind sight. I've been working with some other templates and wound uop using "Alternate text is NEEDED here." Would that be acceptable with thie infobox?

As for "alttxt", again, I've been working with other templates where there's more than one field set that has an "alternate" member. "alttxt" in those cases is more descriptive and clearer. In this case it may though it may be over kill.

- J Greb (talk) 11:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• I doubt whether a visually-impaired reader would like to hear "Alternative text is needed here" over and over again. It'd be better to hear the default (which is typically the image name) than to hear that. At least the image name often conveys some information about the visual appearance; the "Alternative text is needed here" message contains no info.
• The usual pattern in other infoboxes is to use parameter names like "image", "alt", and "caption" for the main image, and then to use parameter names like "signature_image", "signature_alt", and "signature_caption" (or "map_image", "map_alt", "map_caption") for other images. The exact naming conventions depend on the infobox. I agree with you that in this case "alt" is a better name.

Eubulides (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair point on the "not there" text... as for the other, it maybe I'm coming at it from the wrong direction. But you do make a valid point.

I've reduced the field name to just "alt" and put in a temporary cat, Category:Missapplied alttxt paramater, to catch those articles that have added alttxt.

Thanks. Out of curiosity, what is the advantage of "{{#if:{{{alt|}}}|{{{alt}}}}}" over "{{{alt|}}}"? Eubulides (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

hrm... Mostly that I think in the "if..then" formatting ;) You're right though, the shorter ver works just as well. - J Greb (talk) 01:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

website field

Can someone add a website field to this template?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

According to the help desk, the code should be this:

| label#    = Website
| data#      = {{{website|}}}

I'm fine with making this change if there's no opposition, but let's give it a few days for comment. In some circles there's been movement to remove external links from infobox templates. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favour if this change; and of including URLs in biographical and organisational infoboxes in general. Is the discussion to which you refer centralised anywhere? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, just seen it around (WikiProject Music and WikiProject Video Games come to mind recently). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Added fields needed

I was looking over the infobox and it needs a few additions:

1. Street Address - This would be useful for people who wish to visit the building.
2. Past Names - If a building has gone through some name changes than it should be noted in the infobox. We should also make sure we can name a few previous names and not just one. For example Past Names1, Past Names2, Past Names3, ect. (Ice Explorer (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC))

Architect bug

Hi all - I've found what looks like a bug in the template - see Dunedin Town Hall. The building was built under the supervision of architects Lawson et al, then renovated under Hesson et al. As such I listed Lawson at "architect=" and Hesson at "ren_architect=". This resulted in both lawson and hesson being listed separately as "Architect" under the header "Renovating team". The only way that the infobox will list Lawson as the original architect is if I remove the information about the renovation. Anyone able to fix this (or have I done something wrong?)? Grutness...wha? 10:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There was a typo in the template (header45 instead of header55). It should be fixed now. Let me know if you see any other bugs! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

That would explain it - thanks :) Grutness...wha? 22:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Parameter description

The description of the parameters appears to be missing from this page. On other infobox templates, e.g. skycraper, this defines what is expected to be entered (which is sometimes not immediately evident, hence it's good to have this documented). Can somebody please add this? Schwede66 (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

coordinates for locator map and coord template

Despite multiple bright warnings in the documentation that Attention! At use of map {{coord}} it is not necessary to use, I often find it necessary to use the coordinates= parameter in order to get a coordinates link that is 100% correct. My difficulty seems to be that {{Infobox building}} passes a blank 2nd argument to {{CountryAbbr}}, causing it to generate an invalid region code for locations in the United States, India, and Canada. The straightforward fix would be to add a parameter analogous to the subdivision_name1= parameter of {{Infobox settlement}}. However, {{CountryAbbr}} is inefficient and unreliable. I think a better long-term solution would be to introduce a region-iso= parameter similar to that of {{Infobox Berg1}}.

If anyone has an opinion or concern regarding how to address this issue, please comment below. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Is the problem with the coordinates_type not being an option (ala {{infobox settlement}})? This would allow one to override the default. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

An optional coordinates_type= parameter ala {{Infobox settlement}} would provide an acceptable workaround for the issue. However, the name coordinates_type= is misleading because the region code has nothing to do with the type of building. If we go that route, I'd ask that the parameter be named coord_parameters= (ala {{Infobox nrhp}}).

A minor issue with specifying {{Coord}} parameters directly is that their syntax is unique and difficult to explain. To me, learning to look up ISO codes seems much more straightforward than mastering the intricacies of {{Coord}} parameter syntax. --Stepheng3 (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Right. So, perhaps the best thing to do is to rip out the CountryAbbr stuff and add the region-iso as you suggested. If it's left blank, we can set the type to the simple "type:landmark"? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

To avoid losing the region codes, I'd like to continue using {{CountryAbbr}} when region-iso= is blank or unspecified. However, if we add region-iso= to each instance of the template, then we could dispense with {{CountryAbbr}}. I'm thinking a bot could do the work of adding the parameter. --Stepheng3 (talk) 06:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so add region-iso to override the CountryAbbr and have a bot perform the conversion to region-iso. Once the conversion is complete, remove the CountryAbbr. Sounds like a good idea. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Removing the CountryAbbr would be contingent on getting editors to actually use region-iso in new infoboxes. If they don't, I may still want CountryAbbr as a fallback. But adding a parameter is still the first step. --Stepheng3 (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. Do you want to make the change or should I? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I've prototyped the change in the sandbox and run one test in the testbed. Please check my work. If you're satisfied with it, you may do the honors of updating the live version of the template. Note that I (changed my mind and) decided to name it iso_region in order to be more harmonious with the existing parameters. --Stepheng3 (talk) 03:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

PS: Remember to preserve {{pp-template}}, which is in the live copy but not the sandbox. Also please update the documentation (or remind me to do it). You may also want to transclude {{documentation}} to the live copy so that editors know there's a sandbox and a testbed. --Stepheng3 (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look in a bit, the {{pp-template}} is actually not needed in either version as it is now automatic after recent updates in {{documentation}}. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I got tired of waiting, so I made the edit myself. --Stepheng3 (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I had forgotten about it. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge from Infobox modern building

Resolved

The Template:Infobox modern building has almost exactly the same data fields as Infobox building, and if there are any missing they can be merged into it. There is no point having a separate template "for buildings from 1900 onwards." Adabow (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Support merger. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Support. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Support merge per nom. --Stepheng3 (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus. Can someone with more experience than me please carry out the merge? Adabow (talk) 03:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Will look at it in a bit if someone doesn't beat me too it. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this is done. I will replace all transclusions and then redirect, since the parameters are 95% identical. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge from Infobox Kremlin building

Resolved

Merging:

Template:Infobox Kremlin building (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

into this one should be straightforward. There are only 4 trasnclusions. The only differing parameter is |locator=. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The locator variable is for the inclusion of commons:Category:Maps of the Moscow Kremlin maps from that category indicating the precise location within the Kremlin complex. It is of course intent to have this infobox on all Kremlin related articles in the future. Can this variable be included in the infobox building template? If so, a merge would be ok. If not, I would oppose it. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 16:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, this is no problem. We just need to allow for an alternative specification of the map (other than just {{location map}}). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, if that can be allowed for, then once done I'd have no objection to a merge of the Kremlin building template to this one. Cheers, --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 03:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge from Infobox skyscraper

The next template to be merged here should be {{Infobox skyscraper}}. The latter's different parameters are:

| building_name    = 
| former_name      = 
| year_highest     = 
| year_end         = 
| plural           = 
| location         = 
| status           = 
| groundbreaking   = 
| constructed      = 
| est_completion   = 
| topped_out       = 
| opening          = 
| demolished       = 
| destroyed        = 
| cancelled        = 
| use              = 
| antenna_spire    = 
| roof             = 
| top_floor        = 
| elevator_count   = 
| architect        = 
| engineer         = 
| contractor       = 
| developer        = 
| management       = 

Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Strong support Should be done asap. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Strong support, ditto. - SSJ ^t 02:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Designations

Unless I have missed something, there really isn't a field in the template to accommodate information about designations (historic designations first jump to mind, but obviously there are others, e.g. designation as part of a Parliamentary precinct, etc.). The awards & prizes field is a little too narrow - either it should be retitled to "awards and designations" or something similar, or a new field should be added. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we could add a "designations" field. I know some buildings in the U.S. use {{Infobox NRHP}}, but that is a bit much and specific, so it would not be appropriate in all cases. Where would you like it to go? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd support that. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd support this too. {{Infobox Church}} uses heritage designation & designated date which would be very useful in this template when writing about listed buildings. NtheP (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll defer to those who work more closely with this template to decide where it goes best. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Consistency of field names across such related templates is a good idea. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The suggestion of "heritage designation & designated date", to be consistent with similar templates, is a good one. Could someone more familiar with the template syntax make the change?--Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for correction of grammar

"Altitude"? In common usage, altitude is in the air; elevation is the correct term for ground-based structures and natural features. Correction needed! I attempted to edit the template myself, but after some passage of time saw no effect at New Gate. Expert help needed. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not see any edits by you on the template. If you update the template, the job queue needs to refresh the cache for all of the articles that use the template. From the last samples I saw, that refresh was taking several weeks. If you would like to force an update for a single article, just do a null edit on the article. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. What I edited may have been the template's documentation only. What looked like the template itself already had the correct word, so I left it be. Perhaps in a few weeks' time it will all come out right. Hertz1888 (talk) 08:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Changed. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of it, and for knowing how. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

awards & ren_awards Parameters

I am proposing to add to the Template documentation that the above parameters should only include notable awards (i.e. ones with there own articles), Comments please Mtking (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Great idea, because there is a lot of awards cruft (a lot of development and real estate associations have "awards" that just about everyone wins). But there are, presumably, some notable awards that do not necessarily have their own articles. These would typically be local awards. Could you word it so that it says that the template should only reference "notable awards (i.e. typically the award who have its own Wikipedia article, or would arguably meet the criteria to have one)" or something like that? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I had in mid borrowing from WP:LSC with wording along the lines of

Every award should meet the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the award's notability is verifiable, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. This standard prevents the infobox award section from becoming an indiscriminate list.

does that seem acceptable Mtking (talk) 12:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Great! --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Mtking (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Other merges

Might as well merge in {{infobox hotel}} and {{infobox casino}}. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

| names_pre     = 
| casino_type   = 
| casino_theme  = 
| casino_license_holder=
| space_gaming  = 
| shows         = 
| attractions   = 
| notable_restaurants  = 
| renovations  = 
| number_of_hotel_rooms = 
| number_of_hotel_suites = 
| number_of_restaurants = 

number_of_hotel_rooms modified in this proposal from (rooms and number_of_rooms); and number_of_hotel_suites modified in this proposal from (number_of_suites)

Might also be wise to add something like convention_space since most larger hotels now include this and frequently it can be rather large. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

built, completed, finished

What is the difference between these terms? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Good question. I think there are quite a few redundant fields, mostly due to the number of templates which have been merged here. I would like to resolve this issue if I can find some time. The next step is to update the documentation, which is sorely lacking right now. But first, I need to finish an audit of all the parameters which are currently in use. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that part was imported from the skyscraper infobox. Built, completed and finished were various terms which appeared in the status field indicating that the skyscraper was complete. When the different coloured statuses were introduced, the most common terms were all used to set the status line to "Completed" in dark green so we didn't have to visit many, many articles converting the status to just one specific term. For the time being, I have added status to the documentation because it wasn't mentioned anywhere. Astronaut (talk) 03:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Status

If I had more time, I would try to repair the handy automatic status calculator that we had in the skyscraper infobox. The automatic status calculator worked by looking at various date fields, and therefore some skyscraper articles don't have the status field at all. The removal of that feature during the merge has caused the construction status to disappear from some skyscraper articles once they have been converted to use this template. Maybe someone can look into this.

Also, would it be better for the status to be included in the "General information" section, rather then just above it as it currently appears? Astronaut (talk) 03:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I can move the status to the general information header. The "automatic status" was, unfortunately, a necessary casualty of the merger process. Basically, it was error prone, and while I was converting the 2500 skyscraper boxes to building boxes, I noticed that about 50 or so were showing the wrong status (or had dozens of spurious newlines for some reason). Now, if we are to add this, we will suddenly need to check the 4000 or so building boxes that never had this feature to make sure they will not show the wrong status. I think the less error prone fix is to just manually add the status where it is desired. I think having it was a good idea, but ultimately it is difficult for editors to understand how it is being determined. For example, someone might put a completion_date that is an "estimate", and the box says the building is complete, rather than proposed or under construction. I could potentially see adding this feature back in the future, but for now, there is actually much more to do (e.g., checking the 6500 transclusions for other problems and errors and updating the template documentation). I hope this is agreeable. The old code will always be saved in the history of {{infobox skyscraper}} if you want to have a look at it. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Multiple buildings

How do we deal with single articles that cover multiple buildings? A simple case example is Turnberry Towers where, I think, the exterior of the buildings is identical for the most part. About the only difference might be the altitude since the starting elevations are likely to be different. The more complicated case would be something with a large number of buildings like an outdoor shopping center, albeit more likely to be using {{Infobox shopping mall}}. An example of this would be World Market Center Las Vegas. One infobox for the totals and then one for each building? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I have seen up to six towers listed in a single infobox. Basically, they just overload each field with a {{unbulleted list}} with the values for each tower. For example, for height, something like {{unbulleted list|Tower 1: {{convert|80|ft|m|abbr=on}}|Tower 2: {{convert|90|ft|m|abbr=on}}}}. I suppose the basic question is if there are enough similarities to make this the best method. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure. For Turnberry Towers there is similarity. For World Market Center Las Vegas, other then maybe sq ft, there is no similarity. If there is no great solution, then a note in the infobox documentation should be sufficient. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Can someone explain why we don't just use coordinates= and the {{coord}} template? One bot run and we could eliminate about 10 parameters in the template. That is about 15% of the parameters in the template. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That would break the {{location map}} feature (using |map_type=). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

If you do decide to use coordinates= and {{coord}} you will always generate the label even if display=title is selected in coord. I suspect that there is no easy fix for this. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That's correct, there is no way around that. I typically move them to the bottom or top of the article if it's just using "display=title". Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Why would anyone want to stop the coordinates displaying in the infobox? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Since they are already at the top of the first page, so we don't need to repeat the information. Also, for many articles, the infobox is as long or longer then the text material, so whatever you can do to reduce the size of the infobox would benefit many readers. The pushpin map seems to take up a lot of space in some articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Additional Designations & Fields

As {{Infobox Historic building}} redirects to this template, I would personally find it useful to have some designation fields like those in {{Infobox Historic Site}}, so I could add information on listed building status like the following:

| designation1 = Grade II Listed Building
| designation1_date = 25 April 1952
| designation1_number =217669

I also wonder if it might not be possible to add a few fields of a more of historic nature to this infobox such as these, particularly the "rebuilt"/"restored" and "rebuilt by"/"restored by" elements, again like those in {{Infobox Historic Site}}:

| built =
| built_for =
| rebuilt =
| rebuilt_by =
| restored =
| restored_by =

I’m afraid that I don’t know enough about infobox templates to change things myself, and it would obviously be best to get others’ support for any additions, but maybe someone could help with this? The above suggestions would certainly help me when I come to post a couple of articles about historic buildings I am working on – thank you (Lepidus Magnus (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC))

As you will see from the discussion above, I fully support that (as well as your second suggestion). I would change "designation1_number" to "designation1_reference", so as to provide more flexibility -- not all heritage registers use numbers; some organize designated sites by way of categories, etc. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Skeezix1000, thank you for replying about things, and for supporting my suggestions. I’d also be happy with your idea about "designation1_reference" being better than "designation1_number". As I say I personally think it would be useful to be able to add listed building status as in {{Infobox Historic Site}}, which looks like this:

Selly Manor
Listed Building – Grade II
Designated	25 April 1952
Reference no.	217669

I do hope someone could see their way to making a few changes based on the suggestions here, but as I see this template (as well as many more) has now been fully protected, I assume it will have to be an Admin. who does it. Anyway, hopefully some kind person will look into this, so when I am ready to add the articles I am doing there will be room for me to include the information I’d like in the infobox. Thanks again, regards (Lepidus Magnus (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC))

Sorry for not seeing this request earlier. I am now currently in the process of testing a general template that can be used to just list such designations. It will have a feature so it can be embedded into other infoboxes besides this one. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I've created {{Designation list}}, so you can use it in the embedded parameter. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge from Infobox venue

Another straight forward merge:

Template:Infobox venue (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Differing parameters are:

| nickname         = 
| type             = 
| genre            = 
| built            = 
| opened           = 
| renovated        = 
| expanded         = 
| closed           = 
| demolished       = 
| construction_cost=

Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I strongly support a merger of Infobox venue into infobox building. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I strongly support a merger of Infobox venue into infobox building. - SSJ ^t 02:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• "Type"? That's a little, erm, vague. It's also liable to trip us up when merging other templates here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• Caution. "Venues" also are, and an infobox is needed for, places that are not buildings – cemeteries, open air museums, gardens, etc. It is quite useful to keep the parameter type = and some others for such designations. Either accommodate the needs of all venues, or don't merge Infobox venue with Infobox building. "Building" is a subcategory of "Venue," do not kill "Venue" by downgrading it to "Building." ilmari (talk) 05:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • There are separate infoboxes for cemeteries, museums and gardens. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Date not showing

The template documentation offers a choice of |completion_date= or |completed_date=. It appears that only the former works. What's up? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed "completed_date". Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Infobox for fuel production facilities

There is a discussion concerning infoboxes for fuel production facilities. Your input is appreciated. Beagel (talk) 09:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Accessibility

I suggest adding an "accessible" parameter to show whether or not a building is wheelchair accessible. I would go ahead and add it myself but I don't know if I would be violating some rule by doing that. NorthernThunder (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Add another floor count param?

It seems that the template doesn't include an above ground/underground floor parameter. I think both should be added. Comments are welcome. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 4 November 2011

Dear Owner of this page,

I like to help edit this page. Since, I have prior knowledge to the architectural inspiration and main contractor details for this building.

Natasha rod (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Which building? —Stepheng3 (talk) 05:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

✗ Not done No changes provided. And please read WP:OWN, nobody owns these pages here at Wikipedia. mabdul 11:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Geobox

I have proposed that we delete {{geobox}}. That may effect this templates. You are invited to particiapte in the Geobox deletion dicussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Facilities

I'd like to merge the little-used {{Infobox bathhouse}}, into this one. Any objections to adding the only missing parameter, |facilities=? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Note merge discussion re {{infobox hotel}}

At TfD, it has been concluded that this template is to be merged with Infobox building. TfD: infobox hotel.

I have done some research, and started a talk at: Template_talk:Infobox_hotel. Please take a look if you are interested. -DePiep (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Where are we with this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

documentation error

I think the documentation of the coordinates_display= parameter is misleading. In various places it suggests setting to inline,title or yes to display coordinates in the title. In fact, any non-blank value (including no or inline) will cause title coordinates. Or is this a bug in the template? —Stepheng3 (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe {{infobox settlement}} has the same "feature", which is probably the source of the code in this template. We could change this, if it is desirable. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

At this point the infobox is so heavily used that I would prefer to update the documentation rather than change the behavior of the infobox. I'll attempt to update the docs. —Stepheng3 (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, do so please or add a note that it's temporarily not functional. I was trying to get the coords to display at the top and couldn't figure out what I was doing wrong. Hoverfish Talk 09:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Infobox museum

{{Infobox museum}} has been nominated for merger into this template, see the discussion at WP:TFD. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Cannot cure error message

The Infobox building at Beehive (Gatwick Airport) is currently showing an error message Expression error: Missing operand for *.%; I have concluded it is connected to the "map_type = United Kingdom Crawley" parameter, but I have not been able to resolve the issue. Hoping someone here may help. Periglio (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks Periglio (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Add section for rating from county inventory?

Hi all, in writing the article Columbus Power House it occurred to me that it would be nice to have in the template something that indicates it's inventory status, much like what is done for Endangered species.

Note the last section in my article where I provided the classification of the building as "Outstanding" and then "Notable".

Could you add something to the template that allows for putting this information in the info box?

Thanks!

--RichardMcCoy (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

There is an existing template ({{Designation list}}), which can be embedded into Infobox Building, which allows for the insertion of information respecting inclusion on a heritage register and any pertinent details. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, fantastic! Thanks --RichardMcCoy (talk) 02:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Named for

I propose to add a |named_for= parameter, for buildings named after an event, place, person or other notable entity. This will mirror the same parameter in {{Infobox settlement}}. Any comments? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Grounds area

Many of the buildings which we write about (historic houses, schools, chapels, etc.) sit in extensive grounds. I have therefore added a |grounds_area= parameter, which should take a value in hectares, square metres or similar. Use {{Convert}} if appropriate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 02:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I oppose this since, it is a waste of limited positions in the general template, it is better covered on other templates like {{NRHP}} which are embedded. Most buildings do not sit on extensive grounds. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Why are parameters "limited"? Use of {{Infobox NRHP}} (which I assume is what you mean) is restricted to properties in the USA, so it not an adequate substitute for the parameter here, and the |area= parameter in it is for properties which have an area, not the grounds in which a smaller property sits (but thank you for showing the precedent for the use of this information). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

They are limited because {{Infobox}} imposes a limit of 99. Merging in of other templates are getting rejected since there is a desire to not use all of the remaining limited parameters for elements of limited value. So if you want that one, then I want several of the rejected merges to happen since the information in those is more appropriate to the physical building. And yes, {{Infobox NRHP}} is one example but it does not have to be the only one. This exposes an issue with the proposal. The grounds commonly contain several buildings all sitting on one piece of land. So what exactly does the area mean as it relates to being a part of the building? Better to include in a more specific template or in the text where you can cover in more detail exactly what sits on the land. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

{{Infobox}} has no limit after the upgrade to lua. Frietjes (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Border removal

For some reason that I can't determine through trying to read the source code, this template is automatically putting a border around all images. While this looks okay for actual photographs (although most other templates don't include them even then), it looks bad for logos. There needs to be a way to turn off the border.

See Happy Valley (Guangzhou) for an example. I tried the customary image_border tag (setting it to none), but to no avail. Please implement this. — trlkly 16:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Parameter logo does it. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Separate inauguration and opening dates?

Seems you can't use both - is that intentional? 82.132.238.244 (talk) 13:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

seems like a reasonable idea, so I split the two parameters. Frietjes (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Can 'Inaugurated' be made to display above/before 'Opening'? Also, shouldn't 'Opening' (suggests a future event) be 'Opened' (per 'Construction started', 'Completed' & ‘Inaugurated')? 82.132.233.233 (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Several problems. Which comes first? It is common for a building to have move ins before it is inaugurated. What defines opening? What defines inauguration? If someone moves in does that mean the building is open? How do these terms interact with completed? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

So that they can be listed in chronological order (and because that order may vary), is there any possibility of being able to select (on a structure-by-structure basis) the order in which 'Completed', 'Inaugurated', and 'Opened' are displayed? Maybe something like an optional event_order (CIO/COI/ICO/IOC/OCI/OIC) parameter? 82.132.212.222 (talk) 10:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Geobox and buildings

It is proposed to deprecate the use of {{Geobox}} for buildings (currently there are 260 such instances), mostly in favour of this template. Please comment at Template talk:Geobox#Use for buildings. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

~260 instances of {{geobox}} for buildings need to be replaced with this infobox (whcih has 11,780 transclusions) or in some cases, possibly {{infobox church}}. Would anyone like to assist? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Height section

all the fields listed in the height section refer to the height of the building (i.e., architectural height, tip height, spire height). this section is specifically here due to the prior merger of {{infobox skyscraper}}, where height is one of the more important features, as well as which architectural feature is used when it is measured. I attempted to fix this, but was reverted with the rationale that I didn't use a meaningful edit summary. apparently no other objection. however, if this is the standard for reverting edits, then I would say that "ce" is not a rationale for changing the height header, so I have rolled back those edits as well. Frietjes (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I added back circumference and material, and grouped the other dimensional information together. I have also added tracking for redundant height parameters. Frietjes (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The rationale was not that you didn't use an edit summary, but that your reason for reverting my edits was unclear. I've restored my edits, which groups the dimensions parameters together, under a suitable heading, "Dimensions" ("Technical details" is not a suitable heading for parameters such as diameter, and it is ludicrous to have height and diameter in separate sections, under different headings). Since nothing was broken, there was nothing for you to "fix". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree that we should keep the height section separate, and I reverted removal of the tracking category. This version looked pretty good, since it had both a height and a dimension section. What exactly was wrong with that? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Height is a dimension. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Heritage listings

Is it possible to add a mechanism for including parameters for listed buildings (or equivalent), or is there some way of including this information in the infobox already? Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

there are ways, do you have an example article? Frietjes (talk) 14:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Etymology?!

This word is used wrongly in the context of this box, etymology describes the origins and history of words - it is not a term to cover how objects or buildings derive their names. What is being referred to here is "name derivation", something completely different from etymology. For instance if you had a building named the Penwood building the etymology would be - pen Early Welsh for hill or eminence, 'wood' from wudu Old English for a forest. But what is meant is that the Penwood Building was named after someone called Penwood. Please get it right! Urselius (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that "named for" or "namesake" would probably be better here (see, e.g., {{infobox residential college}}). Frietjes (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Map caption

I'd like to modify the template so that the map caption gets the name of the map from inside the map's template/module instead of the pagename that contains the template. If the template's pagename is something lengthy such as "United Kingdom Borough of Ribble Valley", it's not appropriate to display this within the map caption. I've already successfully made similar changes to other infoboxes, e.g. {{Infobox museum}}, {{Infobox monastery}}, {{Infobox historic site}}, {{Infobox GB bus station}}. If agreed, the specific change to be made is: Replace

|caption = {{{map_caption|<center>Location within {{{map_type}}}</center>}}}

with

|caption = {{{map_caption|<center>Location within {{#invoke:Location map|data|{{{map_type}}}|name}}</center>}}}

-- Dr Greg  talk  23:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

No comment? The version I propose is in the sandbox right now; its effect on the testcases is to change the map caption from "Location within Java Topography" to "Location within Java", which makes more sense. -- Dr Greg  talk  22:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

good idea, so done? Frietjes (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much, that's worked nicely. -- Dr Greg  talk  00:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Rank of building in city

It would be great if this template could accommodate in the height section, fields to enter its rank among buildings in that city. (Interesting for skyscrapers, not shorter buildings). For example, to mention that it is 7th tallest in Atlanta (just an example). Any ideas? Any opinions would this be a constructive thing to seek consensus on and find out how to add to the template? Keizers (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Better done in a list or template for tall buildings in that location. If your suggestion was implemented, when one changes it would require every other article with a shorter building to be updated. That's not likely to happen. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Second location map

a request was made on my talk page by TonyTheTiger to add a second location map (like we have in infobox settlement). any comments or objections? Frietjes (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Architecture#Template:Infobox_building_maps regarding improving the mapping functionality of this template.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Template assistance

I would like someone to augment {{Infobox building}} to have the same multiple pin map option that {{Infobox settlement}} has. I.e., I would like to see both the before and after map of this edit included on the page. Can anyone augment the template for that feature. P.S. the example that I showed in that edit (Broadway_Hollywood_Building) is going on the main page at DYK on the 14th so if the change is not too complicated to copy over, it would be good if it could be done fairly quickly. TonyTheTiger (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2014‎ (UTC)

I am assuming this is related to the thread directly above? Frietjes (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Architecture#Template:Infobox_building_maps regarding improving the mapping functionality of this template.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Added descriptions of height parameters

I went ahead and added descriptions of the following parameters to the documentation's parameter table: height, architectural, tip, top_floor, roof, observatory, antenna_spire. I also added a paragraph on "Height parameters". The paragraph explains that four of these parameters correspond to methods used by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) to measure the height of tall buildings.

I redefined one of the paramters: top_floor. Formerly the documentation had these descriptions.

• top_floor: Number of the highest floor expressed as a numerical value
• floor_count: Number of floors expressed as a numerical value

Unless you are counting floors like the Germans (where the ground floor is numbered zero), these are going to be the same numbers. I suspect that what happened here is that the floor_count parameter existed previously, and then the top_floor paramter was imported along with the other CTBUH height parameters when this template was merged with the skyscraper template. So it should be a height parameter. Redefining it from a floor count to a height contradicts the previous description and may not correspond to the values in some pages that use the info box. But I think this is what it was supposed to be, and went and changed the description.

There are still other parameters that don't have descriptions in the parameters table. Most of the renovation parameters, altitude, etc. Relief is mentioned in what looks like a comment from source code, but not in the table. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Top floor and floor count are not the same. It is very common to not have every floor numbered. So it sounds like your change may not be helpful. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

If you specify values for these parameters, they all appear in the "Height" section of the info box: Height, Architectural, Tip, Antenna spire, Roof, Top floor, Observatory. But "Floor count" appears in the "Technical details" section. This would seem to indicate that "Top floor" is meant to be height parameter, and "Floor count" isn't.

The way to check this would be check the code, but I don't understand it. I can follow Lua, but not the old template syntax. If someone could check it then we would know. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

yes, top_floor appears in the height section, so this would be the height of the top floor, not the floor number, which would be floor_count. Frietjes (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. So I guess since I am the one who changed the description, I should check the pages that set "top_floor". From a quick check, all the ones I looked at did treat it as a height, but there are probably some that didn't. Maybe I can put in a bot request to get a list of pages that set it and change it if necessary. And consider requesting an additional parameter if there are enough cases where "top_floor" and "floor_count" are both set to floor counts and are different (Vegaswikian's point, which is true).

Another thing, a number of pages used "antenna_spire" for what the CTBUH calls "Height to tip". For example, Smith Tower. That is completely reasonable. Probably a lot of sources say that. So instead of saying that "antenna_spire" is for antenna towers only, say that for tall buildings it is a synonym for "tip" and either is OK. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to add a "publictransit" parameter

I propose to add a publictransit parameter, similar to what Template:Infobox museum has. I think it would be more relevant here since several public transport stations around the world are located on either the ground or underground floors of buildings. For example, the Gare de La Défense station of the Paris Métro is underneath the Grande Arche, the entrance to the Federal Triangle station of the Washington Metro is beneath the Clinton Federal Building, and the Westminster tube station of the London Underground is below the Portcullis House. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I can see why the museum infobox would have this, since museums are public architecture and being connected to public transit is part of their mission. The case for buildings in general seems a bit weaker.

That said, descriptions of city buildings will often have this information. Here in Tokyo it's always mentioned for residential or office towers. See Shinjuku Mitsui Building, which has a section on Access. This building doesn't have a station as part of the building, but if we had an access parameter people would use it for that -- listing the nearest stations.

So I'm sort of ambivalent. In the city it might be useful. In the suburbs or the country less so. Making it simply an "access" parameter would lead to people listing roads and freeway exits, and I'm not sure if that belongs with the core description of the building. Granted we could say in the documentation that this should be included only when access is part of the building, but whether people would read the documentation is another question. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• How would this entry appear – would it be something like...

Public transit Federal Triangle (metro station)

...if the entry for the Clinton Federal Building infobox was...

| publictransit = [[Federal Triangle (WMATA station)|Federal Triangle (metro station)]] ...? Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• The proposal seems to be for buildings which include a public transport station; but the parameter in the museum box is for a nearby station - and that's how it would end up being used in this infobox, too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

  I suspect that would be the tendency, so, if this kind of entry were to be included, I imagine it would need a couple of parameters such as |integrated_transit_type and |integrated_transit_station for:

Integrated {{{integrated_transit_type}}} station {{{integrated_transit_station}}}

Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion transferred from user talk page

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_building&oldid=633875387&diff=prev

(Undid revision 633874482 by Sardanaphalus (talk) no <center> tags)

Please elaborate.

Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Sardanaphalus, (1) you completely overwrote this edit, (2) there is no reason to change 'background-color:' to 'background:', (3) the diff is entirely unreadable since most of the edit is unnecessary indentation and whitespace changes, (4) the line-height was mysteriously changed, and (5) the coordinates no longer wrap. Frietjes (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

1. Apologies – I hadn't realized there'd been an interim edit;
2. Yes, there is at least one (consider diff between "background-color:" and "background:");
3. Code more readable long-term for sake of one "entirely unreadable" diff;
4. What's mysterious..? (Why, for example, should a wrapped label resemble two separate labels?)
5. Good. (You haven't noticed how unsightly such wrapping looks otherwise..?)

Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

this discussion should be happening at Template talk:Infobox building. Frietjes (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Sardanaphalus, I object to the most recent changes, which should be rolled back immediately for further discussion. Frietjes (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Responses to your original points are above. Please discuss. Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

  I rolled it back, it looks worse to me. Please feel free to propose a change if there is a problem with the current version. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Not only worse, but "horrible". Please elaborate/explain.

  The worst problem with the current version (and with infoboxes generally) is 4. above – and it also applies to infobox data fields and other metatemplates. These templates' default line-height appears to assume that their default font-size is the same as that for article text; the result is formatting where (in infoboxes) single label / data entries can at first sight look like two (or, occasionally, even more). This flaw is the worst of the two that fundamentally compromise the point of these templates.

  Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  • thank you for rolling it back. I would support adding {{longitem}} to some of the labels that frequently wrap. Frietjes (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
    • longitem = padding:0.1em 0;line-height:1.2em; ... so make Infobox's default labelstyle = padding:0.1em 0;line-height:1.2em; ...?

    A test Infobox with datastyle=line-height:1.2em; and labelstyle=(longitem)+(padding-right:1.0em to ensure sufficient gap between labels and data):

Above
header1
label2	Some text as data2 that should linewrap
label3 should linewrap	data3
header5
Some text as data4 that's not accompanied by a label and should also, like data2, be sufficiently long to produce linewrapping – in this case, at least twice.
header7
label8	data8

Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Demolition

If demolitions takes say 3 months, can a demolition start, demolition end be added to the infobox? Bs0u10e01 (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You can just enter two dates, separated by an en-dash. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

previous structure

Could we get a field that indicates the building incorporates a previous structure? For example, an English country house might have been built in 1750, but it incorporated a tower or basement from a 11th century castle. What do you think? Thanks! —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Garbled text

Maybe this isn't supposed to be human readable, but why are the entries for "awards" and "ren_awards" in the TemplateData section garbled? They look ok in the Parameters section. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

adding 'glazing_contractor' line

I add on the 'Template:Infobox building/doc' page in the correct places (I think) 'glazing_contractor'. It would be nice to have the template:infobox building reflect this so wiki pages could list which glazing contractor worked on the facade of the building. Glazing contractors have a major role in building design, performance, and architectural aesthetics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenSD (talk • contribs) 21:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Note- the change I made to the 'Template:Infobox building/doc' page have been undone, I assumed that adding the 'glazing contractor' field myself would have been helpful. I am still in the opinion that adding the field to the infobox would be useful. BenSD (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not helpful to document a feature that doesn't exist. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I see your point, I thought adding it to the document page would make it easier to implement, into the actual template:infobox building. BenSD (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 July 2015

Can we add a construction manager parameter to the template? Construction management firms are hired and perform different work then anything that is listed under design and construction. They serve an integral role in quality control/assurance, budgeting, scheduling and assuring that a project runs smoothly. It has become an important part of the construction process in large projects/renovations so I think it would be beneficial to include it. Can anyone do this please? Construction_Management_Association_of_America Keelsh01 (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Keelsh01 (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

(see discussion in subject below)Keelsh01 (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Top floor

A number of articles are - not unreasonably, given the parameter name - using |top_floor= to store a number or text such as "9" or "9th floor". Much of this useful data was recently removed in an AWB run by User:Bgwhite, acting on Category:Building using deprecated parameters*.

Perhaps the parameter should be repurposed? Or renamed to |top_floor_height=, with the data to which I refer moved to |top_floor_number=?Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

* I regarded these as goodfaith edits but he's now edit-warring two reverts in which I restored the data pending this discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing Go to hell. The reverts were done ~10 minutes before you started this discussion. When I reverted, I stated why you were wrong on your assumption that it meant number of floors. Stop your lying. I was following what the template instructions state, you were not.

There were ~65 articles listed in the category and ~10 had top_floor with the height parameter. Please don't accuse me of screwing up and throwing away "useful data" on a whim. This is twice today you have put me down. Bgwhite (talk) 09:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The top floor number feels a bit crufty, considering we've got a parameter for the total number of floors. The "top_floor" parameter should definitely be renamed to "top_floor_height" if that's its purpose. Alakzi (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi: Thank you for your helpful response. I'd missed that parameter: in that case, the valuable data removed by Bgwhite should have been copied (incremented for UK buildings which use "0" for ground floor) to |floor_count= instead. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Add a Project Manager parameter?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can we add a project_manager (PM) parameter to the template? Over the past two decades, project/construction managers (PM/CM) have become key players in the construction process. In the past, they were usually apart of the contracting team. However, now client's often hire a PM/CM firm separately to over see the building process from the very beginning, working closely with architects and engineers to go over plans and drawings, making timetables for the project, determining material and labor costs, negotiating with and hiring subcontractors and workers, scheduling workers on site, gathering permits and making sure everything is up to code.- "An owner may also contract with a construction project management company as an advisor, creating a third contract relationship in the project. The construction manager's role is to provide construction advice to the designer, design advice to the constructor on the owner's behalf and other advice as necessary."

It has become an important part of the construction process in small-medium-large projects/renovations, and it would be beneficial to include it. Also, it is necessary because adding a construction manager firm's name under any other parameter would be portraying misleading information-it doesn't quite fit anywhere else. Furthermore, the only infobox that attains a sufficing parameter is Template: infobox venue, however that template does not acquire the appropriate embed codes (a user requested this, but was denied). Can this be added please?

References

Keelsh01 (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Agree. I agree with User:Keelsh01 regarding adding a Construction Management parameter to the template. Construction Management Firms play an essential role keeping the project and staffing teams on schedule and within budget. They provide a vastly different role from design, construction or other roles currently listed in the template, so it would be appropriate to list separately. BethannRichter (talk • contribs) 14:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keelsh01 (talk • contribs)

• Note: This vote was made by Keelsh01, not BethannRichter. See this diff. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 21:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• No, it was not. It was made by @BethannRichter on this post and then moved to this section by @Keelsh01 on this post. Be very very careful with those accusations and turn down that WP:PITCHFORK. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 06:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Agree. I agree as well. User:Keelsh01 makes a good case for adding the Construction Management parameter to the template. Construction Management has evolved in to its own industry, it even had a dedicated association http://cmaanet.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpaolin (talk • contribs) 15:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Agree. This template shouldn't even be locked. Request follows common sense. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• This is a highly visible template used on almost 14,000 pages that contains complex syntax that is easy to mess up. It is the textbook case of a template that should be protected. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 21:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• For your convenience, from WP:HRT: "There are no fixed criteria, and no fixed number of transclusions, that are used to decide whether a template or module is high-risk." This template is not intrinsic to Wikipedia's functionality such as {{infobox}} or {{reflist}}. This is a non-mainstream user-created template and should therefore be treated as such. The fact that it's locked goes against our nature of being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I'm myself a seasoned template editor but can't edit it because I'm not an administrator. This lock in this particular template goes against our mission. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 06:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. While you have the consensus to add this parameter, I see no work in a sandbox on how the new parameter will work, nor do I see the clear code needed to implement it. Please remember to submit a edit request not only with your reasoning and consensus supporting it, but also the exact change you want. (i.e.: "Please add/change X to Y"). When you have decided where the new parameter should go, please resubmit your edit request. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 19:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@TrueCRaysball: There is no consensus yet, for two reasons: (i) RfCs run for thirty days - this one has been open for ten days; (ii) BethannRichter and Jpaolin are WP:MEATPUPPETs of Keelsh01. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: My request is logical, I have valid information supporting it, and no user is disagreeing with me. If you have a valid reason why the parameter project_manager shouldn't be added, then please provide it. Otherwise, I don't understand why you are so against it. I am attempting to add a meaningful addition to this template. Despite your accusation, it has been verified that I am not the same user as Jpaolin or BethannRichter. It appears to me that you are searching for any way to block a change on this template. Lets work together to better this site assume good faith here Redrose64. Keelsh01 (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: All the more reason it's good I marked it "not done". And this information will help me in the future. @Keelsh01: No one here is against you, we're just following protocol. You started an RfC, as Redrose stated, those run for 30 days. Second, two of your contributors, as Redrose stated, are meatpuppets. Just give the discussion a little more time. As of now, you will get want you want, assuming no one opposes between now and when the 30 days expires. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 20:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@TrueCRaysball: Thank you for your explanation. That makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keelsh01 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 7 August 2015

It's not even a meatpuppet, I'd go so far as to call it a sockpuppet. You can tell because Keelsh01 forgot to sign out before making this post which claims to be from BethannRichter. I'll also note that both BethannRichter and Jpaolin have only edited this page and Hill International, a company that provides project management (and Hill International's Media Relations Specialist coincidentally is named Bethann Richter). Keelsh01 also edited the page of David Richter, CEO of said Hill International. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ahecht: These points were mentioned at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jpaolin. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Not needed – True, the project manager is sometimes listed in architecture magazines. But usually only for very large projects with multiple pages of credits. My impression is that the facade consultant or HVAC engineer is more likely to be listed than the project manager. Also, as seen above, I would be a bit worried about use of this parameter for advertising purposes. – Margin1522 (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
• Yes Yes, that makes sense. Wikipedia should reflect reality. :) Damotclese (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Per *-puppetry and apparent CoI (the latter should be reported at WP:COIN, btw). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Designation again

I'm bringing this back up - Template talk:Infobox building/Archive 1#Designations. Can we please get a designation such as exists for Template:Infobox historic site? See result here: Lyme Park. It would be nice to be able to easily add Grade I/Grade II etc to this infobox. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The current functionality is to use the embedded parameter to embed {{infobox designation list}}. See the Sydney Opera House for example. If I used it for Lyme Park, I would start it like this:

Lyme Park
General information
Location	Disley, Cheshire, England
Listed Building – Grade I
Designated	17 November 1983
Reference no.	406869

{{Infobox building
| name                = Lyme Park
| location            = [[Disley]], [[Cheshire]], England
| embedded            = {{infobox designation list
   | embed=yes
   | designation1 = Grade I
   | designation1_date = 17 November 1983
   | designation1_number = 406869
   }}
}}

Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Is there a reason it's not just added to the infobox? A good majority of notable buildings with their own articles would be designated in some way. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

So would many articles that use one of the infobox templates listed in Category:Buildings and structures infobox templates. The point of having such an embedded template is that it is easier to maintain a consistent layout rather than add it separately to each one of those 50+ infobox templates. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Embedded child template not centering quite right

Hello, I embedded the infobox restaurant in to the infobox hotel in article [[Sir and Star]] using the embedded= and embed=yes parameters. However, the infobox restaurant is off-center within the infobox hotel. Please assist. I had this issues on another page: [[Michael Laucke]] but I got the child boxes to line up by changing the embed=yes parameter to child=yes. The Laucke article also uses the module= parameter instead of the embedded= parameter. I tried changing embed=yes to child=yes in the Sir and Star article but without the expected improvement. Thank you. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, now the infobox restaurant does not have an ugly border that is misaligned with the infobox hotel; but, now the restaurant name= parameter does not render. See: Sir and Star. The hotel name in the infobox hotel is The Olema, but the infobox restaurant should be showing Sir and Star as the restaurant. Ping me back. Thank you. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Add public_transport to template

It would apply to many many articles, not every transit oriented development falls under a more specific infobox that might include that parameter. Parking is there, I don't see where public_transport would hurt among the roughly 100 parameters that there are now. B137 (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Logo

What is the actual use of the parameter logo in this infobox? Is there any example of the usage? Or it is just an alternate name for the parameter? Thanks for your reply. Doblecaña (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I respond myself, it is used in Freedom Tower, but I am afraid it only can be used in this wikipedia due to your fair use arrangement. Doblecaña (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Tip vs Antenna height

I don't get what is the difference between this two parameters. Can someone clarify? Doblecaña (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Construction stopped parameter

There's a few articles on unfinished/on hold buildings (e.g. Louisville Museum Plaza) that would benefit from a "Construction stopped" or "Construction halted" parameter. SounderBruce 23:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Swissôtel Zürich

Could somebody more template aware than me please take a look at Swissôtel Zürich. This uses the hotel infobox that redirects here. It used to work fine, but it now shows amounts of red:

Lua error in Module:Location_map at line 417: Unable to find the specified location map definition. Neither "Module:Location map/data/Zürich" nor "Template:Location map Zürich" exists. Location within Lua error in Module:Location_map at line 59: Unable to find the specified location map definition. Neither "Module:Location map/data/Zürich" nor "Template:Location map Zürich" exists.

What went wrong? -- chris_j_wood (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested edit 16 May 2016

I'd like to see the "opening" parameter fixed to include the past tense (opened) for completed buildings.

| label27 = {{#if:{{{opening|}}}{{{opening_date|}}}|Opening}}{{#if:{{{opened|}}}{{{opened_date|}}}|Opened}}

SounderBruce 01:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: The diff I suggest is: Special:Diff/720642456. If given both opened and opening are given, only "opened" is used. I've tested the cases in my sandbox and looks okay. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 02:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Done with Special:Diff/720643495. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 03:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested edit 17 May 2016

Another edit request: a cancellation or construction stopped date field to complement the other date fields. Many articles on never-built or on-hold projects would benefit from it. SounderBruce 00:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: There have been similar discussions about introductions of new params on templates like {{Infobox school}}, {{Infobox university}}, etc. Are other folks aware of the need for this param, and is there a consensus? — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 00:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: I gave it some thought, and I'm thinking this suggested param is more likely to be used than many of the params available on the infobox. I've made the change in the sandbox. Does stop_date and construction_stop_date sound like reasonable names for this param? — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 04:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Andy M. Wang: Sounds good to me. Sorry for not seeing this earlier, I haven't been able to receive notifications from the {{re}} template. SounderBruce 04:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 04:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 20 November 2016

Please remove {{PAGENAME}} from the deprecated coordinates format category sort key; it's not necessary for sorting. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 05:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

FROM:

[[Category:Pages using deprecated coordinates format|building{{PAGENAME}}]]

TO:

[[Category:Pages using deprecated coordinates format|building]]

@Jc86035: ? — xaosflux ^Talk 05:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Yes. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 05:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 06:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Errors from somewhere

@Jonesey95: The list of articles with script errors is normally empty, but it is currently adding articles like Sampson House that have not been edited recently. The error message is:

Lua error in Module:Location_map at line 349: Coordinates from Module:Coordinates and individual coordinates cannot both be provided.

The articles showing that message are:

• Bignor Roman Villa
• Four Seasons Hotel Chicago
• Hotel des Arts
• Manila Metropolitan Theater
• Old House of Keys
• Qiao Family Compound
• Rosenstein Palace
• Sampson House

Would someone please investigate. Perhaps all that is required is to remove repeated coordinates from the infobox? Johnuniq (talk) 09:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Since posting the above, another four have turned up:

• Bijbels Museum
• Gravisi–Buttorai Mansion
• Mandarin Oriental, Las Vegas
• Porte d'Aix

Johnuniq (talk) 09:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I believe that's all that's necessary – remove parameters latitude, longitude, iso_region, latd, latm, lats, longd, longm, longs, coordinates_format, latNS and longEW. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 09:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Fixed all of them so far. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 11:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

More at User:Jonesey95/sandbox3. Jc86035: Can the bot run through these? I am otherwise engaged for most of the next 12 hours. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: (pinging JJMC89) Having gone through some of these earlier, it's likely best to fix them manually because people have apparently dumped all sorts of things in |coordinates=, and some of the pages have two different sets of coordinates. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 15:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I have patched the Location map portion of the Infobox to work around the redundant parameters for now. Once we get all of the deprecated parameters converted to use {{coord}}, we can remove support for the lat/long parameters in order to find the remaining articles with strange values in the |coordinates= parameter. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The bot would skip these since there could be a conflict between the deprecated parameters and the value in |coordinates=. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

There are some more problem pages, in the category, but I don’t know how to fix them; or at least in the first one Hare and Billet. there’s no obvious problem and replacing the separate fields with {{coord}} seems not to work.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The first of the testcases is broken the same way too, after purging to force it to pick up the template changes. There is nothing wrong with the coordinates which show up inline correctly.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@JohnBlackburne: That would be because Jonesey95 tried to put multiple parameters into an #if: parser function, which probably doesn't work. It would be more effective to have simply {{#if:{{{latitude|}}}{{{longitude|}}}… … …{{{lon_dir|}}}||{{{coordinates|}}}}}. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 04:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 21 November 2016

Please merge the sandbox into the main template; this fixes the error that Jonesey95 introduced and stops script errors from appearing Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 04:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC) Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 04:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I merged in the top part that fixed the Lua module errors. I couldn't figure out why some of the later stuff had been removed, and it looked like at least one underscore was missing, so I skipped it for now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: The rest of it is related to how iso_region was also deprecated and how the coordinsert Lua function works. (Essentially, I removed a bunch of unnecessary cruft. The module uses parameters to separate the parameter:values instead of underscores.) Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 06:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Please merge the sandbox fully. thanks, Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 07:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: going to leave this for Jc86035 to do as he/she is now a template editor — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

iso_region missing

The parameter |iso_region= is missing from the template. Is it okay to remove it from the documentation?--Auric talk 14:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the note. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 21 November 2016

Could I request the "mark" parameter to become customizable, allowing for other marks, especially ones in other colors? The location map template has this ability. Most importantly I dislike red's low contrast against tan, and since I first looked at it as a pimple on light-colored skin, I can't seem to unsee that. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 20:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Ɱ please make your edits at Template:Infobox building/sandbox and reactivate the request when ready. If you want someone else to work on this they can respond below. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Why do you respond to this then? Do you have the technical know-how to do this? I attempted it, so I know I surely don't. Why wouldn't you leave it open for someone else to respond? I wouldn't have posted this if I knew how to do it myself, and I don't think I know "someone else to work on this", so this is my only option here. That's why they have these edit requests, you know, not only because of PP but because of abilities... ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I support keeping the protected page request queues as short as possible - they represents the immediate impediment editors being able to make the changes they want. Using protected edit requests as a wish list for other editors does not support that. There are 52 editors that have this page on their watchlists that may check up on this. Additionally, here is a ping to Jonesey95 has recently edited this template that may be able to work with you. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I've reactivated this for now - but if it goes ignored will take it back out of the edit queue. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Done The {{{map_dot_mark}}} parameter has been added. Primefac (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

As a side note, I normally completely agree with xaosflux regarding consensus and testing before an edit request is made. However, Ɱ, in this instance it was a relatively straight-forward (and as I found based on other templates, not unusual) so I went ahead and did it. But next time, I suggest either starting a discussion or finding a template editor (hint: ask at WT:WPT). Primefac (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Primefac Okay, that's reasonable, thanks for the tip. As for the edit itself, I really appreciate taking your time to do this. However, I'm not sure if it's working correctly; adding |mark= in the infobox brings up the preview message of "...unknown parameter "mark"...". ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 01:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, it seems to work with map_dot_mark. I can update the documentation. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 01:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Completion date

Why is |completion date= not displayed, e.g. in Meštrović Pavilion? GregorB (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Affected articles may need a WP:NULLEDIT. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

top_floor to occupied

One of CTBUH criteria is Height: Occupied, not top_floor. This should be changed so the parameter displays occupied. Triplecaña (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Use of Geobox vs Infobox

Bringing a proposal about the use of geobox vs infobox for buildings to the attention of any page stalker here. --HyperGaruda (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

add a stairs count parameter?

Maybe add a staircase_count similar to elevator_count. Especially relevant for emergency/fire exits. Skullers (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Where? Skullers (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

There are 4 projects interested in this template. They're listed at the head of this page. Rather than having four separate discussions it's best to have the discussion here and ask for input at the talk pages of those 4 projects. Phrase your request for input in an impartial way - WP:SOLICIT. Cabayi (talk) 05:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Didn't seem like a controversial change. According to WP:EDITREQ, consensus-building is needed before requesting controversial changes. It's a missing technical parameter, like floor_count, elevator_count, number_of_suites, parking, seating_capacity, etc. The number of staircases is very crucial info when it comes to evacuations and fires. While elevators often become unusable. Grenfell Tower fire was the specific reason for the request, though other buildings that suffered fires would also benefit. Is there criteria for inclusion of parameters? I see there's been merges with other templates (like Template:infobox hotel) so some of the parameters are more relevant to some types of buildings but not others. (Does number_of_suites also apply to apartment buildings or only hotels?)

About elevator_count, it usually describes the number of cabs and/or the number of elevator shafts. There are also sky lobbies which are a whole separate thing but can be considered elevator related info. Staircases would count specifically the number of staircases. Skullers (talk) 07:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

"Didn't seem like a controversial change." It probably isn't very controversial, but you titled the request as a question (?), and started it as a question ("Maybe"). Template requests are for action when you have a concrete uncontroversial edit request, not a request for a second opinion.

Your last reply was a mix of disputing Ahecht's reply and justifying the change - two different conversations for two different audiences, both including more questions. Ahecht's decision was the same that I'd have given. When you have resolved the other questions, the ones concerning staircases (with which the relevant projects will be able to help you) and achieved a consensus for a path of action please restate your request. Cabayi (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the information! I guess I should try to be more clear. A way forward will be found. Regards Skullers (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate template parameters

SporkBot says that 'completion_date' and 'opened_date' are duplicate parameters and removed 'completion_date'. Should completion_date be removed from the basic template? Leschnei (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Leschnei my guess is that you are talking about this edit which was removing the duplicate |completion_date= after you added a duplicate |completion_date= to the article. if you would moved the information to the existing parameter above, instead of adding a second one, the bot would have not needed to make any corrections to the article. and no opening is not always the same as completion. Frietjes (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Frietjes - that helps. Leschnei (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Architectural style

Shouldn't the architectural_style show up under the Design and construction heading in the infobox? It appears under General information, which doesn't make sense. Cnbrb (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 April 2018

Please add {{subst:tfm|Infobox monument|type=sidebar}}, per a nomination by Capankajsmilyo {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done Please remember to specify the correct date. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Record height

A discussion at Talk:Lighthouse of Alexandria#Record height has identified an issue with the "highest..." parameters of this template. Specifically, editors are using them for the highest examples of particular types of buildings. For example, the List of tallest buildings and structures#History of tallest tower and List of tallest towers#Timeline of tallest towers articles list a series of towers which were sequentially the tallest towers in the world, but not the tallest buildings. Many of the articles for specific buildings in these lists are using the "highest..." parameters, identifying them as "Tallest in the world" despite their not being the tallest buildings in the world at the time, merely the tallest towers. Is there a way of using the "highest..." parameters for this infobox to specify the type of building involved? - Polly Tunnel (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Mapframe code disabled

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Help_-_Sneaky_Vandalism! and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Help_-_Sneaky_Vandalism!. Please review and determine if this is appropriate content to trust for automatic importing to present to our readers. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

So the disabling has now been undone [1]. Reviewing the general appropriateness of <mapframe> maps is beyond the scope of this talk page – anyone wanting to change the status-quo should start an RfC/discussion at the Village Pump (or another centralised venue). - Evad37 [talk] 02:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Request changing the logic of the template.

According to the current structure of the template, if anyone filled the "Coordinates" parameter with a country name, then the template would convert the country name into a region code and then feed it into Template:Coordinate as a parameter. However, such handling ignored locations where their representative region is not a country in itself. In order to avoid displaying incorrect map service for users who click onto Template:coordinate links or misunderstanding for bots that read information from Wikipedia infobox, please help add the following logic into the template:

For the data18 parameter, if coordinate parameter is filled, and if location_country parameter is filled then the region: parameter would be , except when

if the country is "China" or "People's Republic of China", then check if the "location" parameter, or part of the "location" parameter, being "Macau" or "Macao", if so, then it should be region:MO

if the country is "China" or "People's Republic of China", then check if the "location" parameter, or part of the "location" parameter, being "Hong Kong", if so, then it should be region:HK

C933103 (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Change to the map parameter so Kartographer works

Does anyone know how to modify the infobox so that Extension:Kartographer can be used for the maps? Thanks, Daylen (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC) Please ping me when you leave a reply!

@Daylen: Which article do you want it for? I can try to help. It uses Template:Maplink, for starters. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 20:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ɱ: It's for the Telus Garden article (however, I plan to eventually do the same with hundreds of articles). I have linked the Wikidata item ID which contains the coord data, but I get an error.

Thanks for your help! Daylen (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems that this infobox template only supports the use of pushpin maps, as unfortunately many infobox templates do. You'll have to embed another template in order to add a map, as I do often, and tried at Telus Garden. I think that's easier than updating the building infobox; I'm not sure what complexities that would entail. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Try using {{Infobox mapframe}} (inside this template); it can be used to easily generate mapframe maps from Wikidata coordinates. Template:Infobox Australian road is an example of a template that uses it. - Evad37 [talk] 07:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Daylen and Ɱ: I've put code for the automatic inclusion of mapframe maps in Template:Infobox_mapframe/sandboxTemplate:Infobox building/sandbox (fixed 03:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)). At the moment its set to always show the mapframe assuming coords can be found on Wikidata, and can be turned off with |mapframe=no – though it could also easily be made opt-in instead of opt-out if would be preferred. - Evad37 [talk] 07:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Evad37: Thank you for the help! Would the infobox still include a mapframe if the current map parameters are used (I just wouldn't want two maps displaying in an infobox)? Daylen (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Daylen: Good point. I've changed it so that the mapframe isn't shown if |pushpin_map=, |map_type=, or |image_map= is set. - Evad37 [talk] 09:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@Evad37: I saw your good work, thanks! However, how would one go about making edits to the automatic map (to adjust size, zoom, icons, etc)? Ie match the automatic map on the Telus Garden article to the one I added? Thanks ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 12:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ɱ: Use |mapframe-zoom= to adjust the zoom level (default is 10), |mapframe-width= and |mapframe-height= for the map size (defaults are 270 and 200), |mapframe-marker= for the marker icon (default is no marker icon), and either |mapframe-marker-color= or |mapframe-marker-colour= for the marker colour (hex triplet, default is #5E74F3) - Evad37 [talk] 03:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@Evad37: Any specific reason for making it secondary to the pushpin maps? Are their any known restrictions of why this can't be switched automatically. Also, should it be extended to the other templates listed below, or do we want to wait until more restrictions are fixed (for example, mapframe maps don't display on the Wikipedia mobile app)?

Thanks, Daylen (talk) 05:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The main reason its secondary is that it's not guaranteed to show a map. If there's not any coordinates in the Wikidata item, then nothing will be displayed. The other option would be to displaying both the mapframe map and pushpin map, and leave it up to editors to either have both maps displayed, or remove the pushpin map parameters, or add |mapframe=no to suppress the mapframe map.

I think we should wait at least a few days before implementing in other templates, so any issues like the above, and any more edge-case bugs in the module code (like Module talk:Mapframe § Sandbox error??) can be worked out.

With regards to better (or any) mobile/mobile-app support, or any other improvements, I'm not optimistic about them being done any time soon given that the mw:Map improvements 2018 project has concluded. - Evad37 [talk] 06:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

So should mapframe maps always be displayed unless |mapframe=no is set (regardless of whether there is a pushpin map)? - Evad37 [talk] 11:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Won't that change the behaviour of the {{Infobox building}} template? While it might be a good choice for a new template, introducing a default map adds a map when there was none previously. I also think the default zoon is too high.

I have a request. Can a parameter for mapframe coordinates be added so the map centre can be set independently of the building? For instance, a building in north London would be better shown on a map centred on central London, rather than have London offset.   Jts1882 | talk  14:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jts1882: introducing a default map adds a map when there was none previously – Yes, that is the point of having it on by default. The reason for articles not already having mapframe maps would be that it is a new feature only enabled on English Wikipedia earlier this year, rather than an editorial decision "let's not have a map". Is there any reason why articles which have coordinates shouldn't have a dynamic mapframe map the reader can interact with, in the majority of cases? (given that it is possible to override that default for specific instances)

I also think the default zoon is too high – What value would you suggest for the default zoom? Currently it is 10.

Can a parameter for mapframe coordinates be added so the map centre can be set independently of the building? –  Done, you can now use |mapframe-lat= and |mapframe-long= to set the map latitude and longitude - Evad37 [talk] 02:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the independent centring of the map.

My point about the default behaviour is because it introduces changes on existing pages without an editor previewing the change or it appearing on editors' watchlists. Unfortunately, because of the default settings the map wasn't really very helpful in the example I came across, the Northumberland Development Project, where the map zoomed in on a particular area of London which wouldn't help anyone unfamiliar with north London. In this particular case a zoom of 8 would have been more suitable, but I think the best value will depend on the town or city size.

Anyway, I like these maps and it might be worth adding to other templates such as {{Infobox stadium}}. This infobox has information of the stadium usage that is more important than the map so an option to place the map at the bottom of the infobox might be more suitable. Incidentally, I did create a mapframe template for football stadium maps ({{Football map}}) that could be used for showing the stadia in country, city or league.   Jts1882 | talk  07:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jts1882: Okay I hear what you are saying, how about we add |mapframe=no to all existing transclusions of the infobox (via AWB or bot), along with an edit summary explaining that a mapframe map may be displayed by setting |mapframe=yes. That way editor interaction is required to display a mapframe map in an existing infobox, but new articles/infoboxes can have mapframe maps on by default. Since mapframe maps would be added by editor discretion, we could at the same time remove the code making mapframes maps secondary to pushpin maps. Also pinging @Daylen and Ɱ. - Evad37 [talk] 02:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Strong support That sounds like a great idea! Daylen (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Strong support Perfect. I think showing the map in new infoboxes by default is a positive and it addresses my concern about introducing changes without review by an editor.   Jts1882 | talk  06:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Using a bot to opt out by default would flood people's watchlists. (Plus, I really like the new Kartographer maps.) I don't understand why only new instances of {{infobox building}} should have the map, while old instances would have the map hidden manually. Maybe this can be opt-in by default? epicgenius (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The ideal situation would be

• The infobox shows a mapframe map by default, and a parameter can be set to turn it off (since usually there's no reason not to show it)
• Editors/watchers of an article with an existing infobox get notified that mapframe maps are now shown by default, can review the article, and (if necessary) make edits to adjust the map, turn it off, or turn off an older non-mapframe map
• Watchlists don't get flooded with hundreds or thousands of identical or near-identical edits

Is there any way to accomplish all three of these? And if not, which would be the least important? Pinging @Epicgenius, Daylen, Jts1882, and Ɱ: - Evad37 [talk] 03:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Objectives #1 and #3 seem easy, since the map is useful and the maps can be opt-out, but only on a case-by-case basis. Goal #2 ("Editors/watchers of an article with an existing infobox get notified that mapframe maps are now shown by default") would probably be harder. I don't know how anyone would be able to place a mass-notification, short of a watchlist notice/talk page section on any pages that have {{infobox building}}. epicgenius (talk) 03:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Given that it's been several days without any further comments, I propose to implement #1 (i.e. make this change to the live code), and to add notices to WP:VPT, WP:VPM, and The Signpost's tech report. This won't notify all editors of pages using the infobox, but its probably the best that can be done for #2 while keeping #3 in mind. I don't think it has the importance of needing a watchlist notice – which would likely be annoying to users not interested in articles using the infobox, particularly if this is a process to be repeated with other infoboxes in the future. Any maps with non-ideal initial zoom and position would still be useful to readers (who can adjust the zoom and positioning of the fullscreen dynamic map), and can be fixed as and when editors come across them (WP:NODEADLINE). - Evad37 [talk] 04:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. It doesn't address my concern about changes being made to existing infoboxes without being reviewed by a page editor, but this has to be balanced against what is best going forward. A poorly zoomed/centred map might force an editor to optimise it, which is what brought me to this discussion, and this is better than no map. Adding maps is a good thing, so I support the proposal.

Incidentally, you mention the fullscreen dynamic map, which reminds me of an unanswered question I raised at mw:Help talk:Extension:Kartographer. According to the description the map is supposed to be interactive in the frame and a double-click needed for fullscreen, but I find a single click takes you to fullscreen. The correct behvaviour is seen when previewing edits and on the test2 wiki.   Jts1882 | talk  07:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done, apart from the Signpost which isn't due out till the end of the month. @Jts1882: I would guess that the documentation is out of date, and perhaps static maps are used in saved articles for better caching/performance. Though it is weird that it would be working as documented on test2wiki but not live wikis. - Evad37 [talk] 05:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Even more wierd that it works in edit preview on the English Wikipedia and MediaWiki. This confused me as when I first started using mapframe I saw the correct behaviour when editing and hadn't noticed that the behaviour was different on the saved version. My understanding is that the test2wiki is a newer version of the software, so perhaps in time it will be updated here.   Jts1882 | talk  05:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Evad37: I don't understand why this most recent change was made, which makes the mapframe appear even if the infobox already has a map. The result is that infoboxes on lots of pages like Transamerica Pyramid are suddenly bloated with two maps. I guess the idea is to encourage editors to remove pushpin maps, because... mapframe maps are considered inherently superior? Has there been a broader discussion somewhere about that? I have concerns about whether pushpin maps should be widely replaced with mapframe in its current state, such as the amount of visual noise and the aesthetic quality of the maps. Toohool (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The idea is that mapframe maps shouldn't be secondary to pushpin maps (see further up this discussion) – editors can have the option of removing either one map or the other, or having both maps (e.g. a zoomed-out view in one and a zoomed-in view in another), based on whatever is best for the individual article, or whatever the local consensus is. As far as I know the only widespread discussions were the ones at the village pump that gained consensus to enable mapframe maps in the first place[2][3], plus the widespread enthusiasm for improving maps in last year's community tech wishlist[4]. Since that time, maps have mainly been added by individual editors at individual articles, or been discussed/implemented at individual templates. I think that in most cases, having a dynamic map that the reader can make fullscreen, drag around, and zoom in and out of, would be an improvement – but that decision can be made on an article-by-article basis. - Evad37 [talk] 03:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Evad37: It seems like the new maps have been working well in this infobox. Any plans to expand the code to include the other infoboxes listed on Wikipedia:List of infoboxes#Buildings and structures? Daylen (talk) 05:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I have been slowly going through the ones in the navbox above, and adding them in where there has been support or no objections on the talk page. E.g. I recently did {{Infobox hospital}}. - Evad37 [talk] 06:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Given that I've just removed a redundant second map from the Eiffel Tower infobox which has been up there for at least a month and had around 220k views, I'm not sure editors are realising that they should fix this, and non-editing readers are having to put up with it in the mean time. Should the infobox do something a little more clever if its settings are telling it to draw two maps (eg. have the older city-level map hidden behind a clickable link of "See map of cityname")? There should also probably be a hidden maintenance template for such pages. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The change completely screws up the layout on Trellick Tower, and adds a pointless map to a reasonable map. I've reverted this change as there is no obvious consensus for it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Pin map vs OSM

I see it's been updated with the OSM maps. I don't think they're very useful at all, the point of the pin map was to be able to visualize county location and wider location with a side window at a glance without having to touch anything. Kind of defeats the object when you have the globe to click and external link. The pin was one of the main reasons I was OK with infoboxes in architecture articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Deletion notice

The deletion notice transcluded onto pages says this template is Template:Geobox and THIS template is being consider for deletion, which is not true, can someone remove {{Template for discussion/dated|action=|page=Geobox|link=Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 November 11#Template:Geobox|type=sidebar|help=off|bigbox={{#invoke:Noinclude|noinclude|text=yes}}}} from the template or replace it with a merge notice? – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 03:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Community wishlist

Please see m:Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Maps/Maps Improvements: Vector Structure, Disputed Borders, Cleaner Style, which seems to be about improving the mapframe system used by this template. The wishlist uses approval voting (vote to support any/all wishes that you like), so "oppose votes" are pointless, but useful information, examples, or explanations of problems would be very much appreciated.

This is one of multiple "wishes" for improvements to how maps are handled on Wikipedia. (Most of the others can be found at m:Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Maps, although m:Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Multimedia and Commons/Easy, low-maintenance possibility to include color coded maps seems to be in a separate group.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed category name change

I'm proposing changing the name of Category:Building using deprecated parameters. The category isn't really a deprecation issue. Deprecation is "replace {{{x}}} with {{{y}}}". This category is more of a "this case is not valid". Not saying the category isn't useful! I just think it could be better named and moved out of the deprecation category. Without objection, I'm going to rename the category Category:Pages using infobox building with invalid parameters. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Since we're splitting hairs, it's not the parameters that are invalid, it's the values of the parameters that are invalid, yes? Perhaps "... with parameter errors"? – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

That works for me! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Status = Ruin?

Since the Template:Infobox Historic building was merged with this one, there is no way indicate the Status for existing/ancient buildings. The current status values are biased towards new buildings as can be seen in the description of the field. Can a Status value of "Ruin" be added to the template please? Kmcnamee (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kmcnamee: nothing needs to be added. You can simple do |status=Ruin. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: Yes, I could start using “Ruin” right away, but it would be nice if it was official, and could also be colour-coded like the other Status values. Kmcnamee (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Interactive map displayed in infobox

What exactly triggers an interactive map to bei displayed in the infobox? See e.g. Schmidt-Lademann_House versus The Flintstone House. I can't figure out why the map is displayed in the one infobox and not in the other and can't find a hint in the description of this template. Thanks -- Schmila (talk) 11:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the interactive map is a default based on the coordinates in Wikidata. Only one of those articles has a Wikidata item. There are some parameters that can set a map with explicit coordinates and change the zoom level. An example can be found at Northumberland Development Project where I changed the zoom and centre of the map with the following parameters:

| mapframe-zoom     = 8
| mapframe-long      = -0.1
| mapframe-lat     =51.5
| mapframe-marker=soccer

The documentation is at Template:Infobox_building#Mapframe_maps. There is general mapframe documentation at {{Infobox_mapframe}} and mw:Extension:Kartographer.   Jts1882 | talk  12:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Jts1882, the hint regarding the wikidata item was what I needed. Would be helpfull if this were mentioned in the descriprtion. Perhaps I will look into that. -- Schmila (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The explanation of when mapframe maps are displayed is at Template:Infobox building#Map type in the template's documentation. Feel free to improve it if you can. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

It seems that the maps are now purely static and that you can no longer expand them to use interactively at full size.   Jts1882 | talk  09:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Open Street Map locators

Hi. I'm not sure this is a good idea. The whole purpose of an infobox map is to show rough location in a regional area at a glance without having to click it. Particularly when browsing on an iPad it is difficult to use it and it looks unsightly. I would rather a return to the old pin maps. You can click the globe for OSM and google map views.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 October 2019

In {{#ifeq:{{{embed|}}}|yes|'''Building details'''}}, please remove the redundant / excess boldface markup ('''), so as to avoid "double boldface" rendering.--Hildeoc (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC) Hildeoc (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Hildeoc and MSGJ, this broke the bolding in articles like Fort Pitt Tunnel and Dillwynia Correctional Centre. can we use {{#ifeq:{{{embed|}}}|yes|<span style="font-weight:bold">Building details</span>}} instead? it's my understanding that the Internet Exploder double bold bug is only triggered if there are bold tags, but not by bold css? Frietjes (talk) 17:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

okay, since there are no comments, I have changed it. Frietjes (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 October 2019

Please change template call {{ifempty}} to {{if empty}} to avoid the redirect. The call to that template is transcluded in over 20,000 articles through being called in this template, so that unnecessary redirect has to be followed every time one of those articles is viewed. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. For further discussion see User talk:Colonies Chris. --Trialpears (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Option to change other_dimensions label

Hi, I think there should be an option to change the other_dimensions label. It would be useful for being more concise and was mentioned as an option in the infobox pyramid merger TfD. If noone objects I will implement it shortly. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 10:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

topped_out not displayed

|topped_out= seems to be valid but is not displayed. Goldin Finance 117 is an example. Frietjes? MB 19:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

User:MB, if I recall, |topped_out= is supposed to be a "yes" or "no" thing that will toggle the "status" if the |status= isn't set otherwise. to show the topped-out date, you are supposed to use |topped_out_date= or |topped-out_date=. but, not surprisingly, this isn't obvious and there are many articles using these parameters incorrectly. it's the same story for |cancelled= / |canceled=, but with no cancelled_date. I wouldn't mind changing |topped_out= to function the same as |topped_out_date=. you can find some of the correct and incorrect uses with this search but I will add a tracking category as well. Frietjes (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Frietjes, OK, not well documented. The para (and topped_out_date) is not listed in the main parameter table, although they are in the usage list. So there is nothing to say the values for topped_out are Y or Yes or yes or whatever it wants (same with cancelled).

I changed Goldin Finance 117 to use |topped_out_date= and put the most sig status (on hold) in |status=.

The status is supposed to display in color according to the doc, but it seems to be in b/w. If that was an intentional change, the doc should be fixed. Can you advise? Thanks. MB 21:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

User:MB, see this edit by Rich Farmbrough which appears to be intentional. Frietjes (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, I removed the mention of colors in the doc. MB 21:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Map wrong

In this version of Museum of Textiles and Industry of Busto Arsizio, the OSM map is wrong. The coordinates are correct in WD, but when this map is generated it seems to be using lat/long 0/0 instead of the actual coords.

Clearly not a generic problem with {{Infobox building}}, but I don't know if it is specific to only this article or not.

I fixed the article with a work-around - using {{Infobox museum}} which is more appropriate anyway. This also shows the coords are correct in WD. Frietjes? MB 22:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

User:MB, should be fixed now. the code used by {{Infobox museum}} is newer, so I imported that here. could be that it wasn't getting the coordinates when pulling them through the template wrapper, but using the module directly allows it to access those coordinates directly. Frietjes (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

How does this work?

Maisons Jaoul
General information
Location	Paris, France
Address	83 Rue de Longchamp Neuilly-sur-Seine
Completed	1954-56
Design and construction
Architect(s)	Le Corbusier

Looking at the article Maisons Jaoul, I see a nice map of central Paris and I can zoom in to see these two individual buildings outlined. Then looking at the infobox, I see very little indeed: just a street address, no geodata, no post code (ZIP code), very little indeed. But when I try to imitate that sparseness in another infobox (because I would rather have this dynamic mapping rather than the current static map), I get no map at all. Aiming to make the question convenient, I reproduced the infobox here and ... no map. What is the secret? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

That is the magic of Wikidata. The article is pulling from https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3280340. It doesn't work here, because this talk page does not have a corresponding Wikidata entry with coordinates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Bazinga! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

If Wikidata doesn't have the appropriate information (i.e. the coordinates), there are several solutions. Either edit Wikidata or add the mapfram coordinates to the infobox. If you give name of the page where you want to add the Mapframe map, I can take a look. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I would really rather learn how to do such things myself, thanks. But if you would like a challenge, my first target was Xscape, which is actually about three distinct buildings 100s of km/miles apart. (I have another target to try and I can see that it has wikidata). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

That one was very simple as it had |mapframe=no set. There are various |mapframe-XXX= parameters that can change the position, zoom and other aspects of the map. They aren't well documented, though. They are basically the parameters described at {{Infobox_mapframe}} but they are prefixed by mapframe- so the |NAME= in {{Infobox_mapframe}} becomes |mapframe-NAME= in {{Infobox_building}}.

You can also use mapframe maps to mark several buildings, but that will probably need to use {{mapframe}} in the infobox rather than the built in version.

If you prefer to experiment, feel free to ping me if you have questions. —  Jts1882 | talk  17:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Public Transit Access

I notice that infoboxes for park, library, museum all have fields for public transport access, I think it's a helpful way to describe what part of town a building might be in. Could it be added to this infobox? --Paul Carpenter (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Transit access parameter

I notice that {{Infobox museum}} has a |publictransit= parameter, which allows specifying transit access to a building. This template currently has a |parking= parameter but is missing that one. Could we add it? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Paul Carpenter: Wait, I just noticed your exact same proposal above, and looking in the archives, I see this has been proposed twice before us two. I'll wait a bit and then add it if there is no substantial opposition, since it seems this is clearly wanted. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy pings @B137 and Zzyzx11:. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense, but to replace 'parking=' (which to me wanders off too far into wp:not guide). It is very common, especially for notable buildings in large urban areas, for newspaper and book descriptions to give the nearest metro station at least. Bus routes are maybe a little more volatile. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I think parking can be in scope if it's an architectural feature of the building. Public transit access tells you more about how the building fits into an urban landscape whereas nearby parking as you say, strays into not_guide. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Paul Carpenter, agreed with that. The current description of the parking parameter reads Information on the building's parking facilities (e.g. number of spaces or lots). We can add a clarification that it's not supposed to be used for nearby parking unassociated with the building itself. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Added. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

That was similar to one of the issues raised back in my rejected 2014 proposal. You could write in the documentation that those parameters should only list parking and public transport inside the building, but editors will end up listing those transport options nearby the building like the rest of the infoboxes. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

It would be nice if this perimeter worked in several infoboxes even if it was a commonly used in some of them. B137 (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Implementation

So it looks like there's consensus for this. How does the code from {{Museum}} look?

| label27     = Public transit access
| data27      = {{{publictransit|}}}

{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Update:  Done. Anyone who wants to go through the 22,000 transclusions and start adding uses, feel free. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Landlord parameter

What is the point of having a separate "owner" and "landlord" parameter? Jklamo (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Minor cleanup

1. The template has three parameters with uppercase, while lowercase name is available. We can remove the uc variant.

|Status= → |status=

|Logo_caption= → |logo_caption=

|number_of_Bars= → |number_of_bars=

No usage found; uc names will categorise the article (by parameter check).

2. There is a separate check for |1= being used. This can be removed, as Module:Check for unknown parameters already does this.

Category:Pages using infobox building with parameter errors is used for other check too so must stay.

-DePiep (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

3. Parameter names with alt spelling, not needed (underscore = standard in this template):

|map dot label= → |map_dot_label=

|topped-out_date= → |topped_out_date=

No usage left (after me editing them out today). -DePiep (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Sounds alright to me. I personally tend to like having aliases for parameter names as they make templates easier to use, but in this case I agree that standardization should win out. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Same for me. Also, not documented. The five aliases together required some 35 edits to remove them. Still 175 parameters left. -DePiep (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

4. These parameters are checked by Module:Check for unknown parameters, but are not present in code. To be removed; can be re-added after deemed useful & working & tested etc.

|qid=

| mapframe | mapframe-caption | mapframe-custom | mapframe-id | mapframe-coord | mapframe-wikidata | mapframe-point | mapframe-shape | mapframe-frame-width | mapframe-frame-height | mapframe-shape-fill | mapframe-shape-fill-opacity | mapframe-stroke-color | mapframe-stroke-colour | mapframe-stroke-width | mapframe-marker | mapframe-marker-color | mapframe-marker-colour | mapframe-geomask | mapframe-geomask-stroke-color | mapframe-geomask-stroke-colour | mapframe-geomask-stroke-width | mapframe-geomask-fill | mapframe-geomask-fill-opacity | mapframe-length_km | mapframe-length_mi | mapframe-area_km2 | mapframe-area_mi2 | mapframe-frame-coordinates | mapframe-frame-coord | mapframe-switcher (31x) |mapframe-zoom = is used and so kept.

-DePiep (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Not to be removed. -DePiep (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

5. Use {{Main other}} for tracking categories. -DePiep (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

6. Add |mapframe-line= to Module:Check for unknown parameters: makes mapframe set of parameters complete (once, no aliases). Per mapframe documentation. -DePiep (talk) 13:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 November 2020

• Please replace all code in {{Infobox building}} with {{Infobox building/sandbox}} (overwrite; diff).

See below for updated request -DePiep (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Changes: removes spelling-alternative parameters ('Status/status'; not needed, unused; 5x), rm checks for parameters not present (32x), add {{Main other}}. No changes in articles expected.

Talk and test: See #Minor cleanup; changes are trivial. /testcases and [5].

DePiep (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Many of the mapframe parameters are valid and in use. See the Template data monthly report. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Jonesey95 They are not used in the template code (not consumed). The article input you see is idle. As said: if an actual use in code is needed, they can be added (after proposal, sandboxing, testing etc.). Please consider reopening & executing the request. -DePiep (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

... or is there a more hidden route through which the parameters are read? Todo with {{maplink}}? If so, I can rfemove thiis part from the change of course. -DePiep (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I suggested a place to look. Here's a more direct link. Look at the mapframe markers in these articles. They use the parameter |mapframe-marker= to show a different marker on the mapframe map, which the sandbox proposes to eliminate from the parameter check. Please copy the working live template code to the sandbox, and then eliminate or change only things whose functionality you understand. Make some testcases if you need to experiment. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The mapframe parameters are used by Module:Infobox mapframe - Evad37 [talk] 00:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Updated request:

Changes: removes spelling-alternative parameters ('Status/status'; not needed, unused; 5x), rm checks for parameters not present (32x), add {{Main other}};

new in update: add |mapframe-line= to parametercheck, after checking the set with mapframe documentation. No changes in articles expected.

Talk and test: See #Minor cleanup; changes are trivial. /testcases, testcases#mapframe_tests and [6].

@Jonesey95 and Evad37: pinged for earlier interest shown. -DePiep (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

This modified update is  Done now. The edit summary was: "rm redundant, inconsistent parameters; limit error check to article space; rm unneeded error check". – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Start a documentation discussion?

Would anyone be interested in starting a discussion page on the documentation for this infobox? When I first looked at the documentation, I had a hard time figuring out what some of the params mean. E.g. it took some digging to figure out that "architectural" means (I think) "Height to architectural top" as defined by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. There are some other params that I still don't understand, like the difference between "relief" and "altitude", and how to use the "references" param. I'd like to add some examples of how these params are used properly (e.g. embedded). But I don't know how hard or easy it is to gather examples and statistics. I do know something about how this information is presented in architectural journals, but before I change anything in the documentation I'd like to discuss it with others who know more about infoboxes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margin1522 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 27 August 2014‎

"Surpassed by" for subsequent tallest building

I observe that the template indicates the following tallest building as "Surpassed by", but that doesn't apply in the (several) instances where the tallest part of a building is destroyed so the subsequent "tallest" building hasn't surpassed it at all. Is there any way the template could be modified with an alternate parameter to indicate "followed by" rather than "surpassed by" in those instances where this applies? Newimpartial (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Mapframe parameters

Doc says mapframe-width is an alt to mapframe-frame-width, but it fails the valid para check. Frietjes, could you sync up the parameter checking? (unless the better solution is to un-document it.) Thanks. MB 17:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

okay, added. Frietjes (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Alternative name

The field is named alternate_name, but it's displayed as alternative name when populated in the infobox. Maybe we can make the necessary change? - Seasider53 (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The parameters use snake case. – The Grid (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Built

Does anyone object to adding a "Built" parameter to this infobox, to allow for a date range, like "| built = 1966–1971", rather than having "| start_date = 1966" and "| stop_date = 1971", which creates an extra line and plenty of whitespace in the infobox. The two parameters only benefit when you list a full date rather than just the year. ɱ (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Map oddity

A map is appearing, unbidden, in the template at St. John's Market. Can someone advise, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Following discussions, maps are created automatically in this template. You can turn it off with "|mapframe = no" ɱ (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 March 2022

For data10, it should be built | completed | finished | complete = Completed (tense) 219.78.190.165 (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Change in size?

Was this change to a fixed size discussed anywhere? It appears to go against Help:Pictures#Thumbnail sizes. I recommend switching back to frameless so that readers' thumbnail size preferences are respected. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, most infoboxes that I have seen have a wider default image width, at least 250px. This infobox's "frameless" setting made images display at an awkward 240ish px, with bad-looking whitespace to either side of every image. It also wouldn't align with logos or maps, which have/had other default widths. This all also aligns with the MOS, MOS:IMAGES, which states that "Cases where fixed sizes may be used include for standardization of size via templates (such as within infobox templates or the display of country flag icons)". I think this keeps user settings from chopping up carefully-formatted infoboxes and lede sections. ɱ (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any awkwardness in the sandbox version, which uses frameless. The sandbox uses my preferred thumbnail size (in my case, 300px) and looks much better on my screen than the tiny image provided by the live template. The whole point of the thumbnail preference is to allow images to be sized appropriately for an editor's screen size. Using fixed pixel widths eliminates that possibility, making the infobox look right for you but not for others. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm just saying what MOS and other infoboxes use. The vast majority of readers are not editors, and the vast majority of editors do not customize their image sizes. I won't object if you find a workaround, but I would like to follow the MOS and make infoboxes display well for the masses. ɱ (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

mapframe-coordinates

Okay so I'm officially stumped.

Burr-Brown Corporation needs two Infobox buildings with maps pointing to different locations. But both maps point to the same location.

First error I had to fix was to understand the |display= of {{coord}} must be set to |inline, not |title or |inline,title. Digging into the talk archives of that template gave me that info.

I managed to find out that the article defaults to some WikiData item (hate this utterly misguided reliance on something other than plaintext!!!) so I got rid of that. Still both maps point to the same location.

I commented out the coordinates specified; and in conjunction to actively setting the WikiData item to "unknown" I finally managed to break the dependency.

Next issue - now the infoboxes does not appear to support what the documentation promises, that of supporting the coordinates parameter to override the Wikidata. It does nothing. Okay, so I use the alternate (suggested by the documentation, which for some reason is {{Maplink/doc}}): mapframe-coordinates

Then I get:

Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox factory with unknown parameter "mapframe-coordinates". Grrr...

I cannot for the life of me understand when or if there's been a change that went undocumented - everything is coded in Lua.

I'm sure from a programmer's point of view Lua and Wikidata items are great, except it makes the life of a Wikipedian much much much harder than it needs to be.

Anyway - How do I specify a manual override coordinates so one article can have many auto mapframes, each with its own separate set of coordinates supplied by the article, divorced from any other source (no wikidata).

Somewhat exasperatedly yours, CapnZapp (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Very confusing. I hacked that article to display the map, but in my playing around with the sandboxes for this template and {{infobox factory}}, I could not get them to work in the way that {{Infobox mapframe}} describes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I can fix this, but please don't feel frustrated. Pulling from Wikidata is immensely helpful 99% of the time. Most articles don't have two infoboxes, or need two. Will work on this... ɱ (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I feel certain the issue is safe in your hands! CapnZapp (talk) 08:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: - so... two other users fixed the page. The buildings themselves aren't really notable here, which is why "Infobox building" and "Infobox factory" are not really appropriate; "Infobox company" makes more sense. And company pages like this usually don't have maps for their headquarters or offices. But Jonesey95 had fixed the technical error and made the maps work, you are always free to go back to that version if you wish. ɱ (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

First off I don't oppose the removal of the maps. Now, to the best of my ability I can't find any relevant edits to the involved templates so I have to conclude supplying map coords "manually" (as opposed to through WikiData) works for Infobox building but not for Infobox factory. Perhaps something to look into? Finally; I'm not sure it's needed, but maybe restore Burr-Brown Corporation's wikidata entry? Regards CapnZapp (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Done and done. Now if you were to use "Infobox factory" at Burr-Brown Corporation, you would only need to fill | coordinates = in the infobox in order for a map to display. ɱ (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Image size

I think that the default image size should be removed. While MOS:IMGSIZE carves out an exception for infoboxes, I still believe the change should be made to respect user preferences. I've updated the sandbox, and you can see the changes in the testcases. Logged-out users will see slightly smaller images, but the map frame will stay the same size for everyone (I don't know how to get it to use user preferences). Does anyone have qualms with this? SWinxy (talk) 00:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I do. This has been discussed ad infinitum. The rules are on my side, to keep image size defaults for infoboxes. ɱ (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Wasn't in the archives here, so I decided to ask. SWinxy (talk) 01:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Thoughts on change shortdesc to have "building"

Many of the uses of this infobox create a short description that reads a bit oddly because Module:Type in location is invoked with its type argument as the direct building_type argument without adding the word building afterwards. This can results in short descriptions like "Office in Halifax, Nova Scotia" where "Office building in Halifax, Nova Scotia" would be more appropriate. Having said that, it's possible there are times where this would not work well. I was wondering what others thoughts were. TartarTorte 21:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

It looks like almost all other values of |building_type= work well with this automation. You can see some of the values used at this page (scroll to building_type and then click "Click to show"). It appears that only about six articles use "Office"/"office"/"Office" as their value, so those articles could be fixed manually, either in the infobox or in a short description template within the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Jonesey95, Thanks for the link to that tool. That's unbelievably helpful and I had no idea it existed. Honestly, incredibly useful. TartarTorte 01:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The link is buried in the template's documentation, in the Template Data section. You can find it on the documentation page for many templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

'Funded by' parameter

{{Infobox religious building}} seems to have a |funded by= parameter. Would that not be useful in this infobox too, for cases where the cost of a building or a restoration is borne by a patron or sponsor or indeed any body different from the owner or user? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Request to add more location details

Can we add things like:

• County
• Post Town
• Postcode Area
• Postcode District etc

Danstarr69 (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Address is enough. If you want, you can tack these onto/into the address, but it's supposed to show location, not postcodes like for mailing. It's not a directory. ɱ (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. County could maybe be considered, but the others don't seem suitable for an encyclopedia, as opposed to a directory. Graham (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Text wrapping

Despite being the second- and third-longest labels in the infobox, the labels for the "construction started" and "construction stopped" parameters are unique in this template in using {{nowrap}} to prevent them from wrapping. This is in contrast to numerous shorter multi-word labels in the same template. As a result, when the infobox is used in its standard width, the labels take up nearly half the width of the box, leaving little space for the actual content. Could the {{nowrap}}s be removed? The necessary code is as follows:

Line 136:	Line 136:
| data23 = {{{groundbreaking_date|}}}	| data23 = {{{groundbreaking_date|}}}
| label24 = {{Nowrap|Construction started}}	| label24 = Construction started
| data24 = {{{start_date|{{{construction_start_date|}}}}}}	| data24 = {{{start_date|{{{construction_start_date|}}}}}}
| label25 = {{Nowrap|Construction stopped}}	| label25 = Construction stopped
| data25 = {{{stop_date|{{{construction_stop_date|}}}}}}	| data25 = {{{stop_date|{{{construction_stop_date|}}}}}}

Graham (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

This could be deliberate. The point of nowrapping the longest labels is that everything shorter is automatically not wrapped, since they are shorter. This is a commonly used trick in bulleted lists in infoboxes: nowrap the longest item, and everything else is on a single line by default. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Where that technique is used for content in an infobox in a particular article, that can make sense. I've even implemented that in bulleted lists myself many a time. But as not all parameters of an infobox are used in every article (and in the case of this infobox, a typical building article doesn't make use of the vast majority of parameters), one can't assume that shorter labels wouldn't wrap. In the article I was working on most recently, for instance, two other labels would wrap were construction_start_date not included (though the infobox would nonetheless be shortened substantially as there would be less content wrapping). So I don't see how the inclusion of {{nowrap}} could have been a deliberate choice intended for the entire infobox template as opposed to an ad hoc measure implemented inconsistently. Graham (talk) 05:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

That may be an argument for more labels to be nowrapped, rather than fewer. In any event, It appears that the nowrap was added in October 2012, and I don't see a discussion about it at Template talk:Infobox building/Archive 1, so here we are. I'm fine with removing the nowrap; I just wanted to ensure that editors reading this page understood that there might be a reason for it and had a chance to give their opinions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I can certainly imagine an argument for more labels to be nowrapped rather than fewer, specifically an argument for some of the shorter ones to be nowrapped. With a label of this length, however, nowrapping tends to lead both to squished content and to needlessly longer infoboxes more often than not, in my experience. But I definitely don't mind giving others a chance to weigh in first on the off-chance that someone has misgivings. Graham (talk) 06:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Please could you edit Template:Infobox building/sandbox with required changes and make sure the display looks okay? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Done. See Template:Infobox building/testcases § image width test. Graham (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Heritage Designations

Could the "heritage designations" from e.g. Template:infobox religious building be brought in, so that we could give e.g. a building's UK listed status as part of this infobox? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Use {{Infobox designation list}} with |embedded= to show heritage listing information. See Balmoral Castle for an example. There is no need to duplicate that formatting here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks - will have a go at copying that one. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Number of floors

It's unclear if floor-count is above ground only, or combination of above and below ground. Example. Is Logan Century Center 1 82 floors or 86?

Previous: Template_talk:Infobox_building/Archive_1#Add_another_floor_count_param? (11 years ago). -- GreenC 16:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Adding "Weight" data and label on the Infobox building.

Hello. Could you please add "Weight"? Bonthefox3 (talk) 06:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Why? (and if you are thinking of e.g. the ISS, it would have to be mass as it is weightless right now). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)