Template talk:Infobox software/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Real software name

Shouldn't the infobox say the real name of the software? e.g.: iexplore.exe, explorer.exe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gramy (talk • contribs) 00:46, 8 May 2008

More parameters are needed

API

"part of", "depends on", "used by", "interchangeable to", "savable format" and "loadable format". Sorry for my poor Engliash.61.123.42.143 (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

For API:s, the following tag is needed: "language bindings" - for example the libxml2 is written in C, but also is directly interfaceable to C++, XSH, C#, Python, Kylix/Delphi and other Pascals, Ruby, PHP5, etc, etc.. Said: Rursus (☻) 11:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe I should consider make a new Template:Infobox Software Library? Said: Rursus (☻) 11:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Release Version, Preview Version, Prior Version

Currently, the infobox allows for a current version, and a preview version. I would like to have a field for maintenance version. A lot of software uses the development branch model. For example, some software projects issue three versions:

• the development branch (looking forward),
• the stable branch (current)
• the maintenance branch (looking back)

The first two fields currently exist in the infobox. I propose adding the maintenance release and date as optional fields (without disturbing existing fields).

Awkward screenshot field

Why do we have to type in the brackets and Image: to enter a screenshot? Can't we model this field after the image field in Template:Infobox_scientist where you only have to enter the name? And why isn't there automatically resizing, similar to those used in other boxes?

--Jiuguang Wang (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Templates need updating

{{editprotected}} Currently, this template refers to templates Template:Latest stable release and Template:Latest preview release. These should be updated to the new Template:Latest stable software release and Template:Latest preview software release. This is so that when editors click on the +/- to update to the latest version, they do not edit the redirect page instead of the version page. -- Schapel (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Not done: for the same reason above. Moving the request into a new section does not make it not a revert. There's really no rush - take the time to find out why it was reverted, and make sure the fix applied is the right fix. Happy‑melon 14:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize until I after added the editprotected template that this has already been discussed before. I agree that we should find the right fix and there's no rush. The template moves have been problematic for months, so another month or two with problems isn't a big deal. -- Schapel (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Two "frequently updated" parameters

In order to allow the +/- to be there when the subpage does not yet exist, the 'frequently updated' parameter will need to be split - one for specifying if the release is to be transcluded, and one for the preview (as I imagine not every page with a frequently updated release also has a preview release). Though depending on how many pages don't have a preview release, it might make more sense to have an opt-out parameter for preview, rather than opt-in. --- RockMFR 18:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"Genre" -> "Type"

{{editprotected}} Again: "genre" is generally used for video games only. "type" or "category" should be a more appropriate word. 195.138.210.45 (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it to "type". I agree that genre is not an appropriate word for software. --- RockMFR 21:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Add an "Versions" (or "Other versions") parameter

{{editprotected}} Eg for {{Msieversions}} in Internet Explorer 8 --h2g2bob (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't see that this would see much use. Exceedingly few software apps have one article per major release on WP. It would be better to just include this in the article body. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It would only affect major pieces of software with multiple versions. The main reason I'm asking is because it's hacked into the |website= parameter on the IE pages. The alternative is to edit the IE pages, I guess. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

{{{latest release version}}} and {{{latest preview version}}} already exist and are commonly used, no? Disabling the editprotected request for now. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Frequently updated parameter not working for VirtualBox

Can anyone help me out with VirtualBox? I have created Template:Latest stable software release/VirtualBox but it doesn't appear in the infobox, despite setting "frequently updated" to "yes". --TimTay (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The name of the template must match the name given in the infobox. Makes sense, doesn't it? So, you need to move the template page to match the infobox name, or you much change the infobox name to match the name of the stable release template page. -- Schapel (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Easy when you know how! Thanks. --TimTay (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

convert to {{infobox}}

{{editprotected}}

The current sandbox contains an {{infobox}} variant of the code which I've tested out. It makes minor changes in the template formatting to fit in with the usual {{infobox}} style (used pretty consistently across most computing templates now), including the following:

1. The {{{title}}} is a proper table title
2. The {{{collapsible}}} parameter no longer adds a coloured bar to the template

As this makes the project more consistent, and this template's code a lot more future-maintainable, I'm asking for this code to be copied over to the main template. Any issues with the code (I've tested it as best I can), please bring them up here and I'll try to fix them ASAP. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong link

{{editprotected}} Please change the link Platform (computing) into Computing platform. -Lwc (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"Information valid as of" field?

As Wikipedia entries get out of date, it might be worth adding a field "Information valid as of <date>". For example, Spinrite was last updated in 2004, but that version is still current and available. I'm not sure of the protocol for adding fields to templates, so won't add it myself. Pol098 (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

hCalendar microformat

{{editprotected}}

Please add, after {{Infobox the line:

| bodyclass = vevent

and after | title = , add:

| titleclass = summary

so that the infobox will emit an hCalendar microformat (the start date may then be added using a {{Start date}} template, as in this edit). Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Elonka 03:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; that's working correctly. I've updated the documentation accordingly, and marked {{initial release}} for deletion (or redirect) as redundant and inferior (in that it doesn't produce the classes needed for the microformat) to {{Start date}}. I have also proposed renaming {{Release date and age}} as "Start date and age", and again adding the microformat class outputs. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Somebody removed them! Please reinstate, Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Now fixed. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Source Code Repository Field

I suggest to add an official source code repository link to FOSS projects. This could eventually be separated into two separate templates: open-source & closed source info box templates, the former containing a repo link and the other not.

Example: for firefox, the field would be: source code: http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central, as officially listed here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazabubu (talk • contribs) 16:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Support: Seems reasonable. Could even have a nice little icon showing what version control system is in use. Git; Mercurial etc. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Please advertise the discussion at WT:SOFTWARE and WT:COMP, and then prepare a sandbox version to be synced. Anomie⚔ 02:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

End-of-life fields

I suggest we add one or two fields for the end-of-life of a piece of software. For example, Mozilla Firefox 2 was superseded by Mozilla Firefox 3 on the date the latter was released; and support ended will apply at a later, fixed date. Thoughts? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 01:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Define min-width for left column

{{editprotected}}

See Template talk:Infobox#Define min-width for left column. --Tom Edwards (talk) 11:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This is fixed in the sandbox. Needs synced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

spaces

I would like to propose the removal of all but one of the blanks before the “=” in each line of the template (under “Usage”). It would be nicer that way if you remove some (of the longer) lines...--Speck-Made (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's massive easier to edit deployed templates if the attributes are aligned, though. What do you see as the problem with the current layout? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit Protected

{{editprotected}}

<noinclude> {{pp-semi-template|small=yes}}</noinclude>

is causing extra space on articles. Please change to

<noinclude>{{pp-semi-template|small=yes}}</noinclude>

96.53.149.117 (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, please just remove the line entirely. The protection template can be placed in includeonly tags in the /doc page, which means that the protected page doesn't need to be edited to make corrections to it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 14:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You broke the hCalendar microformat by removing classes, Please examine your edit, and repair it. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean Rjd0060 (talk · contribs) perhaps? My edit was simply this. Cirt (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, yes. He's now fixed it. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Released parameter

IMO there should be separate parameters for the first public release and the first stable release. The current released parameter is misleading, as "initial release" implies that it refers to the first release, while the template documentation specifies that it should be used for the 1.0 release or the equivalent. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

latest release/preview date and version subtemplate

latest release/preview date and version

This is a unnecessary subtemplate, this info does'nt have to be in a subtemplate, this have to be IN the article, in this way is more efficient and more easy for edit. It's just a insane to be making templates for every article.--Sotcr Excuse my English (talk me) 08:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

If it's not available the article will use whatever is specified in the infobox code. I don't see what's wrong with allowing the option; it seems to be quite popular. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this become "quite popular", but is just a stupid and unnesesary subtemplate, we must stop this. If we dont, every software article will have 2 templates, so, if we have like 150 software articles, so 300 subtemplates for each one, is INSANE, becouse we can stop this just by ADDING the info in the article. I don´t know who came here whit this idea, is just unimaginable to think this idea is good (Realy, i can not think how this could be "good") --Sotcr Excuse my English (talk me) 15:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The use of {{Start date}} is necessary to have the date includes in the hCalendar microformat. This is clearly documented in both this template and {{Start date}}'s documentation. Your use of "must" is uncalled for, you are merely expressing what you think should happen. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about the "latest release/preview date and version" subtemplate. Like this one. And I say "must" becouse is just comun sense to do it, is unbelievable than this subtemplate still exist (I mean, becouse it have no sense to be, is EVEN more easy to put that in te article, normally). --Sotcr Excuse my English (talk me) 16:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

May I ask exactly what problem this creates? It should not matter at all how many sub-templates we have. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Becouse this subtemplate impede a normal process. To be editing the subtemplate is more complicated than just edit the article itself, this subtemplate make more difficult the things and take space from wikipedia --Sotcr Excuse my English (talk me) 17:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

And as I said before: Is UNNESESARY :D Is the dumbest template I ever see --Sotcr Excuse my English (talk me) 17:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

So, I suggest delete this feature from the template for the reasons I already argued --Sotcr Excuse my English (talk me) 23:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You can take it to WP:TFD if you want, but I doubt very much that it will be deleted. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to delete THIS template, what i want to be deleted is the pharameter "|frequently updated=" becouse this is the cause of the unnecesary SUBtemplate (EXAMPLE). --Sotcr Excuse my English (talk me) 01:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

So ? Sotcr Excuse my English (talk me) 05:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent) Again, I don't see that the option provided here makes it more difficult to edit the template, and the "space" argument does not wash because we are not supposed to make decisions like this based on hypothetical performance issues. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The space-waste is just a secundary reason, the real reason is becouse this feature of the template make veeryy complex the things, too much. Is hundred of times more easier to do it from the article it self. This is really an obstacle to a normal performance --Sotcr Excuse my English (talk me) 18:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

One benefit I see in using a subtemplate is that this would allow embedding latest release information (date and version) in other pages such as this one--DarTar (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Cross-Platform Software Versions?

Does anyone have a good idea of how the infobox could work for software that is released for more than one OS and where the versions of these latest releases are different (say 3.5 on Windows and 1.0 on Macintosh)? Michael.b.price (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Just provide both versions with the qualifier "(Windows)" or "(Mac OS)" accompanying them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Parameter "latest maintenance version" is not working.

Was it removed or am I misreading the documentation? Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember this ever working. If it was removed, it was done well over a year ago. I've removed the bogus fields from the documentation. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

"OS" parameter

{{Editprotected}} Shouldn't this be spelled out as "Operating system" for clarity? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm going to agree with you, and seeing as no one has voiced dissent in the past 11 days despite other talk page activity, I'm going to make the change now. If people disagree please voice your opinions and we'll see where things go from there. --CapitalR (talk) 07:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Website being optional

I think the website parameter should be optional. I know it is probably very rare to see a computer program without an website nowadays, but... why make it a required paramter? (what about very old programs with no website?) Cheers SF007 (talk) 04:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It already is optional (most parameters are, I think). Try it. +mt 05:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Another case of the documentation being about two years out of date. Fixed now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Fork row

{{editprotected}} As common more on OSS, there have been situations where a piece of software is a fork of another piece of software. Maybe we should add a field for acknowledging these things right in the infobox. Also, as suggested above, add a field for a separate End-of-life too. ViperSnake151 21:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that these are definitely necessary. Both are fairly uncommon attributes, especially EOL (as while a particular version of an app is usually EOLed, the app itself rarely is). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Style tweaks

{{editprotected}}

Requesting sync from the sandbox for minor code tweaks including one layout change - making the labels nowrap (as currently this leads to labels with "developed by" or "operating system" wrapping, which isn't pretty). Test cases. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done --CapitalR (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

editprotected request

{{editprotected}}

can Someone change the line for the 'label6' parameter to read as follows? (per a discussion at Wikipedia:Requested_templates#Software_Discontinued)

| label6 = [[Software release life cycle|{{#if:{{{discontinued|}}}|Discontinued|Latest release}}]]

this adds a boolean 'discontinued' parameter which changes the phrase 'latest release' to 'discontinued'. I'll update the docs. --Ludwigs2 15:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"author" field is misleading

{{editprotected}} The "author" field is currently a bit misleading. The documentation states that it should contain the original author, however it is rendered to "Designed by", which is vague and a bit confusing as "design" is usually associated with "graphic design". Could it be renamed to perhaps "Initial author(s)"? Likewise, could the "developer" field be rendered to "Developer(s)"? I would personally find that much clearer. Laurent (talk) 10:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Could I have people's comments on my changes in the sandbox? I made the changes requested above but I have also been sorting out the problem whereby the same field can be displayed twice. See for example the preview release field on Old revision of AOL Instant Messenger. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No response, so I  implemented — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for change! Laurent (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Price missing

I think the price is very important to include on the infobox. Most people care more about the price than the license. I know there would be cases were the price is not fixed, but that could be solved by simply doing: 10$-20$ Anyone opposes it? SF007 (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know – it would be very hard to define. Some programmes like shareware and server licences are sold directly by the manufacturer, but many go through retailers who can charge whatever they like. Whose price would be authoritative? Some (especially games) tend to get cheaper as they age – should the article reflect the original price, or the latest discount? In which market should the price be measured? David Arthur (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point... maybe have it hidden by default and only include it in programs that have that clear. eg: Firefox, Ubuntu, OpenOffice.org ... The problem is that a program might the under the GPL and still be non-gratis... the license field is just not enough... SF007 (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a good idea. (You accidentally used five tildes on those sigs, by the way.) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well... while I agree that setting the "right price" might be pretty much impossible, we could simply add a "gratis" status. I think this would be helpful for many people... SF007 (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

| license = Freeware? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that many people do not consider "freeware" a license, and I've seen some people just reverting "freeware" and adding "proprietary" (which does not talks about price). SF007 (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason why you can't include both, I often end up adding closed source to many of the articles where I add proprietary and you could always add:
| license = [[Proprietary software|proprietary]]<br />[[closed source]]<br />[[freeware]]
--Tothwolf (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Influenced_by/influenced missing

It would be nice to have these, just like programming languages has them. Possibly: works with/compatible with would be nice. JCN (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)