Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Birthplace_in_opening

There is a discussion going on about whether the information within infoboxes has to be repeated in the text, or "body", if you will, of an article, specifically whether the locations of birth and death (which many editors wrongly put in the parentheses with the dates) have to appear elsewhere than inside an infobox when they're moved from inside the dates-of-birth-and-death parentheses. Whew! It seems to me that MoS Infoboxes is the best place to clarify this point. I propose a change to this project page saying something like, "The information within an infobox should also appear outside the infobox in the body of the article." --Milkbreath (talk) 10:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd be careful with this... There's currently a lot of information included in infoboxes that is not included in the main body of the article. For athletes, stuff like uniform numbers, throwing/batting hand, career stats, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Hitting "random article", I find articles like CBPL-FM, Carroll Avenue (NICTD), Keeled Box Turtle, and the list goes on. In fact, I think it's the exception, rather than the rule, that infoboxes contain only information contained in the rest of the article. This would be a major change. GreenLocust (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, not everything which works in a tabular form works in prose. - Denimadept (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Right. I thought of that, and they are common-sense exceptions. The problem is that people are saying that because certain information is in the infobox it doesn't need to be in the article, specifically in this case locations of birth and death in biographical articles. The objection you raise would also apply to, say, articles about elements, where we wouldn't expect every teensy detail to be laid out elsewhere. I would like, nevertheless, for the default position on infoboxes to be that they are intended to be a handy summarization and not the article itself. You can see that some short articles could well be covered entirely in an infobox, which I don't think is desirable. I'm wide open for suggestions as to wording, and I hope everyone reading this will follow the link in the section heading and chime in. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

What's the correct format for multiple entries in one field?

The notable ideas fields of Daniel Dennett, Antonio Negri and Aristotle's infoboxes all contain several entries but each uses a different format to separate the items (br tags, dots or commas). Is there a single correct format to use? I had problems reading Negri's infobox via dbpedia so I assume dots are incorrect. Whitespace (talk) 11:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I usually use line break for such things, as in the dates at Tay Rail Bridge. - Denimadept (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Whatever works and looks well. Ignore all rules if they interfere with benefiting the encyclopedia. If you don't trust your judgment on that matter, go do something else where you do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

A different take on multi-part infoboxes

The current section on the matter says "Rather than having each field correspond to a parameter on one template, the infobox consists of an individual sub-template for each field..." and gives the example of {{Taxobox}}. However, there's at least one infobox, {{Infobox animanga}}, which uses subtemplates for whole groups of fields, with each subtemplate corresponding to a different possible media type/release (e.g. manga, anime, films, etc.) - perhaps the best analogy here would be nested infoboxes. I'm not sure of whether this should be mentioned, though, or the best way to mention it as such. Thoughts? 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Chains of infoboxes

I'd like to suggest a standard infobox feature. Since some articles require a set of infoboxes rather than just one, we should have a standard way to include them so we can improve the look, rather than make them look clunky and mis-matched like they generally do now. The {{infobox nrhp}} has a way to do this, but it's non-standard. Is there someone here who understand how infoboxes work well enough to do this? Is it something the community can agree with? - Denimadept (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Good idea in principle, but we need to make sure that any solution is both accessible and semantically valid. Including a stand-alone infobox is unlikely to be either; but including a dedicated sub-template may be OK, Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
C.f. {{Infobox animanga}} 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
So that would break infoboxes up into bite-sized units which could be placed in a "row" and would look like a unit? - Denimadept (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think so. {{Infobox animanga}} developed as a result of fairly unique requirements for infoboxes on anime/manga articles. It seems that some other infoboxes use a superficially similar system, but {{Infobox animanga}} is definitely the most clearly modular one I've seen so far, and the closest to the suggestion given here. On that note, I would suggest creating a module component for each infobox meant to be supported in this way as a subpage of that infobox (e.g. "Template:Infobox foo" would have one at "Template:Infobox foo/module" or similar). These modules should then be categorized to provide a complete and up-to-date list of infoboxes which support such modules. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 20:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
That modular system is very cool. But is it a closed system? That is, does it allow the same box template to be either a section or a standalone box? Most uses of {{infobox building}} and {{infobox bridge}}, the two candidate-for-a-mashup boxes at the article that raised the issue this question alludes to, are going to be standalone uses. Absent the special parm that says "mate with your neighbors" they need to work as before. I believe this is either what Andy's alluding to, or similar but different, but I'm not sure which. ++Lar: t/c 01:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
What's more, sometimes we need multiples of an infobox, such as in Robert F. Kennedy Bridge. - Denimadept (talk) 02:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
There is no limit to the number of modules Infobox animanga can accommodate (until you run into the MediaWiki-level template restrictions) - have a look at e.g. Saint Seiya for a particularly large example with a number of modules for the same media types. At the same time, though, currently the modules require the header and footer to both be used, even if there is only one module used on the article - this is inherent to its design and usage, and probably couldn't be changed without a good deal of effort. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) so make"infobox NRHP", building, bridge, etc all be wrappers where they invoke the top, the new module, and the bottom, and the new module ("infobox NRHP/mod", building/mod, bridge/mod, etc) is where all the meat is, but doesn't have a top or bottom so it's includable/stackable, then? Is that the way? ++Lar: t/c 18:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
So how do we stack 'em? Do we invoke the bits separately when we wish to stack, and have a common top/bottom? - Denimadept (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Pretty much. I'm not sure where the top/bottom should go, but they're probably going to have to be much more minimal than the animanga top/bottom modules are. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
{{infoboxtop}} and {{infoboxbottom}}, perhaps? - Denimadept (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Giving this a glance, for my money it would be {{infobox modular/header}} and {{infobox modular/footer}}, with specific subpages dedicated to fit this wrapper for each member i.e. {{infobox NHRP/mod}}, {{infobox bridge/mod}}, {{infobox building/mod}}, etc. This would be a virtual repeat on the animanga concept except spread across all existing infobox templates where a modular version is desired. The name is not important, but using "infobox modular" as the single base would consolidate documentation. The basic conversion to create modular versions as /mod subpages appears to be changing the code from an infobox based template into a plain HTML table template. I am not sure how conflicting duplicate variable names within infoboxes, i.e. "height =", would be handled within modular subpages, possibly "height_bridge" and "height_building", but it looks at first glance like that would be an issue. Sswonk (talk) 22:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
The only problem with duplicate parameter names across modules would be human memory; specifically, an expectation that if a parameter is present across a number of components, it should be present across all of them (even when common sense would dictate otherwise - human fallacy knows no bounds). Other than that, all modules could (theoretically) use the exact same set of parameter names without trouble, since each module would technically be a completely separate template (wouldn't look too pretty used without *anything* else, but that's not really the issue here =) ). Other than that, wikimarkup modules would be possible, but more trouble than simply converting to HTML, and I like the name "infobox modular", but a redirect from "modular infobox" would probably be a smart move. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 16:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Placement

As a person who's frequently involved in categorizing and recategorizing new and newish articles, I just wanted to mention that in recent weeks I've noticed a serious increase in the number of articles formatted under the mistaken assumption that the infobox is supposed to begin after the introductory paragraph of the article. Does anybody know where this is coming from and/or what to do about it? Bearcat (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea where it is coming from, but it might help if WP:AWB and/or a bot could help fix it. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Something for SmackBot, perhaps? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Help creating a new infobox

Hello. I am new to Wikipedia and don't know if this is the right place to post this but i am interested in getting a new infobox made. I work in and am mostly interested in Architecture and one of the big things right now is in Green building design. Here in the US we have a program called LEED which is a system for rating and validating buildings that are built to green standards. I don't know how to make a infobox but im sure it has to do with HTML code or something along those lines. If someone who knows how to make one can get a new box made with the following fields listed below it would be greatly appreciated.

Template:Infobox Green building

{{Infobox Green building | name = | image = | image_width = | caption = | address = | location = | coordinates = | use = | opening = | owner = | developer = | property_manager = | architect = | contractor = | construction_budget = | style = | floor_area = | floor_count = | LEED_Certification = | website = | footnotes = ))

Category:Buildings and structures infobox templates Thanks - Cygnusloop99 (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if this is something which someone could add to the existing {{infobox building}}. - Denimadept (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, please don't create a new infobox template if {{infobox building}} can be adapted to fit your needs. Let me know and I am happy to help. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

URLs in infoboxes

Many infoboxes contain a field for displaying the URL of the official webpage of the subject of the article (e.g. {{Infobox company}}, {{Infobox rail company}}, {{Infobox TV channel}} to name but a few). Does anybody know if there is a MOS guideline which states whether the URL is supposed to be piped or not? I can't find one.

Current practice seems to suggest that the purpose of such a field is to tell the reader what the URL is: certainly, this is what is done in the sample usages of {{Infobox company}} and {{Infobox TV channel}}. However, a particular user is insistent the style indicated in WP:EL of hiding the URLs of all external links applies regardless (and objects to me trying to apply WP:COMMONSENSE, but anyway....). It seems to me that, in this situation, piping the text, say (in the TVOntario article), "TVO" over the top of "http://www.tvo.org/", for instance, is detrimental to our readers: knowing what the official URL is is useful information, and takes up the same amount of space.

A policy or guideline on this may be needed! --RFBailey (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Please point the user to this discussion. - Denimadept (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Done [1]. --RFBailey (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Can someone point me to the exact sentence in whichever page supposedly requires piped links? Because while examples of the most common formatting system are abundant, I'm not finding anything that requires it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
It's supposed to be Wikipedia:External_links#External_links_section. That's what I remembered to be the link requiring it from a discussion over a year ago.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 02:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I can't find anything in there which mandates piped links, even in old versions (I checked September 2008 and December 2006). --RFBailey (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
There is, however, a guideline at Wikipedia:Linking#Link titles (although I don't know why this isn't part of WP:EL). However, the way the guideline is written doesn't seem to have infoboxes in mind, rather the "External links" section of an article. Also, it doesn't place an outright ban on displayed URLs anyway. --RFBailey (talk) 01:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Would it be okay to bold?

The Twilight Saga: New Moon
Directed byChris Weitz
Written byNovel
Stephenie Meyer
Screenplay
Melissa Rosenberg
Produced byMark Morgan
Wyck Godfrey
StarringKristen Stewart
Taylor Lautner
Robert Pattinson
CinematographyJavier Aguirresarobe
Edited byPeter Lambert
Music byAlexandre Desplat
Distributed bySummit Entertainment
Release dates
November 16, 2009 (2009-11-16)
(Los Angeles)
November 20, 2009
Running time
130 minutes[1]
CountryUnited States
LanguageEnglish
Budget$50 million[1]
Box office$662,477,961[1]

Would it be okay to bold Screenwritter and Novel like that? Many other movie articles do bold something similar to that in the infobox.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Round ten

Editors at this page may (or may not) wish to have a look at WT:WikiProject_Composers#Biographical_infoboxes.2F10th_discussion, in which some editors say that infoboxes can be deleted on sight (for articles within the project's scope), and others say that they should never be deleted because other projects like them, or something like that. Someone asserts that this is the tenth go-round for this particular issue at this particular debate in this particular group.

The current "discussion" is currently 50 kb, and I'm sure that comments by some WP:CIVIL editors would be sincerely appreciated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

A very fair statement of the situation has just been put together at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers#A new perspective, in the hope of wider discussion. I'd encourage (beg even) as many people as possible to give it an open-minded review and post constructive comments there. This is an ongoing issue that needs to be properly resolved, through a widely-participated review. Please come and give your thoughts on the statement linked. Happy‑melon 16:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Naming issues

The section:

The top text line should be bold and contain the full (official) name of the article's subject; for people common name is optional. This does not need to match the article's Wikipedia title. It should not contain a link. Avoid {{PAGENAME}} as pages may be moved for disambiguation.

does not reflect current consensus around adding the hCard microformat to biographical infoboxes; nor does it reflect current best and common practise. I suggest rewording and reordering to something like:

The top text line should be bold and contain the full (official) name of the article's subject. This does not need to match the article's Wikipedia title. It should not contain a link. For people, their common name is needed to allow the use of an hCard microformat. Take care when using {{PAGENAME}} as pages may be named for disambiguation.

Thoughts? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you give a link to the discussion that formed the current consensus on adding hcard microformat to biographical infoboxes? Keith D (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
No, because it's over two years old and took place over a number of different pages and projects. Note, though that I referred to both current consensus and current best and common practise. There are literally hundreds of infoboxes emitting hCards; I'm not aware of any objection to them doing so. Are you? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I was not objecting just asking you for information to backup your statement about current consensus. Keith D (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall a consensus that all infoboxes had to use hCard microformat. Quite the opposite actually that it was done on case by case basis with the editors of those subjects being involved. -DJSasso (talk) 03:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring on the project page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

What does the hCard require for a name to function properly? I support the use of hCards, but I don't like the wording of the proposed hCard sentence.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 08:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The "fn" ("formatted name") property is mandatory in hCards. For example, in HTML: <span class="fn">SaskatchewanSenator</span>. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Which can be placed in a field that does not display visually. -DJSasso (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Doing so is deprecated in microformats; and would mean that the property would not be recognised (rendering the microformat invalid) by key microformat parsers, not least Google. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Reverts

Djsasso has, twice in 24 hours, reverted this change on the project page ([2], [3]); I believe that he had no consensus to do so. I also believe has done so because of a disagreement over what should happen on {{Infobox Ice Hockey Player }}, regardless of the fact that the style of that infobox is at odds with virtually every other one on Wikipedia; a large number of which currently use {{PAGENAME}} in the manner described. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe the consensus for this MOS page is the status quo, not your recent changes. Propose and discuss them here to find a new consensus, if that's what the community decides. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs)
If you look above, you'll find that's exactly what I did. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I did, and I saw your proposal, and the seeds of discussion, but certainly no conclusions and no consensus. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Can you show where anyone objected to the amendment, between me starting a discussion here on 25 July, and making the change six and half days later, on 31 July? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Please read WP:BRD. You boldly changed the page. I reverted as per the cycle. You should then have attempted to discuss further instead of reverting me again. To be honest it is actually you that is reverting out of process. -DJSasso (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
BRD applies when discussion had not already taken place. Now, would you like to say what about the change you actually object to? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry. I don't see any discussion. I see that you said you wanted to change it and then you changed it. I see no discussion whatsoever. You merely changed it because you aren't getting your way in another discussion. So you tried to change the rules to win a debate. I object to it because its not used everywhere, there has been no wikiwide discussion on this topic. Having the name at the top of the infobox is redundant to the lead sentence and article title (in most cases). It aesthetically also looks bad. There are many numerous reasons why this is not a mandatory field. -DJSasso (talk) 04:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sad that your only response seems to be false allegations and failure to assume good faith. Can you show where anyone objected to the amendment, between me starting a discussion here on 25 July, and making the change six and half da ys later, on 31 July? Do you accept that Manual of Style/Infoboxes/Archive 5 is wdiely used to populate the name or similar parameter of infoboxes (and thus that the guideline as you have reverted it does not present current practise); or do you allege the opposite? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The current guideline does present current practice. ie Some infoboxes use the person's name and some do not. Even if all infoboxes did display the common name that would still not mean its current practice, as there is no current practice requiring us to have the name. Its just common that people do use them. However, current practice is to not require them, hence the one infobox you are objecting to doesn't use it which means current practice is that some do use them and some do not. As for no one object, no one objected because you didn't notify any of the groups this would effect that you were looking to make this change which while not required it is generally good manners to do so. Especially since you proposed it while arguing with a project about using the common name in their infobox. -DJSasso (talk) 22:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
"if all infoboxes did display the common name that would still not mean its [sic] current practice." [my emphasis]: I don't see how we can have a meaningful discussion if you cannot see the logical contradiction in your statement. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
You are missing the point...There is a difference between opting to do something and requiring something be a certain way. -DJSasso (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I would like to see where there was consensus support for this change. You proposed something, it had very little discussion at the time, so you boldly made a change. At that point, someone reverted per WP:BRD, so we are back to discussion. Your change does not get to be set into stone because there was minimal interest in this topic a month ago. Resolute 04:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

Andy pinged me and asked for my opinion here, so I'm responding. I would agree that at this point the use of the common name as the infobox title is commonplace, and that a {{PAGENAME}} fallback is almost universal. I'm somewhat less clear on why the fn attribute has to be tied to the infobox title. I would also note that the use of the common name is in fact so commonplace that the proposed rewording (which still prescribes the use of the official name) would still be out of sync with current practice. This would be a good time to give editing the policy a rest and try a few rewordings to see what best reflects current and ideal practice. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

←What about:

The top text line should be emboldened and contain the name of the article's subject. This may be formal or informal, and does not need to match the article's Wikipedia title. It may default to {{PAGENAME}}, but take care when using this, as some pages are named for disambiguation. It should not contain a link.


Where the infobox emits a microformat, the name will probably be used as the "formatted name" (fn) (or as the "summary" in hCalendar).

Perhaps also with a line about not using images of text. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That's significantly better. Thoughts from other parties? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
The issue I have is the changing of the name being not required to being required. This doesn't address that. -DJSasso (talk) 16:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

←Any further comment? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits

Reverted

Despite there being no further comments, in the last seven months, Djsasso has just reverted this change. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Right because all the comments above disagreed with you. -DJSasso (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Languages in title field

Are there any guidelines regarding the use of alternate languages in title fields? It seem to be a growing trend to add other languages into the infobox title field, which can be problematic when dealing with subjects from countries with multiple languages, such as India. Also, the title section can get quite long, necessitating hide toggles, such as at United Nations. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do we need other languages for such things on the English WP? I can see it for subjects existing in a non-English speaking place to include the local name, but something like the UN doesn't need that. - Denimadept (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Some templates, such as {{Infobox settlement}} include separate parameters for non-English names of the subject, with a language-code parameter, so that they can be marked up correctly, according to web standards. This is the correct way to go; multiple values in different languages should not be entered into single fields. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Left / Right

Why are infoboxes now displayed at the left / top of the article instead of on the right with text to the left of the infobox? Adam sk (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

They aren't as fire as I know. Could you post a link to an example please? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Names at top of infoboxes

There is an RfC at Template_talk:Infobox_ice_hockey_player#rfctag which could do with wider community input. --JD554 (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are names necessary at the top?

The MOS currently says that The top text line should be bold and contain the full (official) name of the article's subject; for people common name is optional. At Template talk:Infobox ice hockey player#Revisiting_the_name_issue, there's a debate about whether this guideline is a good one. The hockey infobox doesn't have the name in the header. People who like this design say that having the name in the article title, the first sentence of the article, the photo caption, and in the infobox header is redundant. Those who would prefer the name be in the header say that it's better to follow the MOS, and that the hCard microformat is lost as a result of not having the name there. As the hockey infobox is the only infobox that currently doesn't include a name in the header, and as the issue continues to be contentious at the talk page, I'm wondering if you can settle a few issues:

  • How important is keeping the name in the header, given all the redundancy?
  • If it's not that important, would other infoboxes benefit from not having the name there? Would it be better change the MOS so that the name in the heading would be optional, or even have the MOS recommend taking out the name in certain circumstances?

--Rsl12 (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The name in the infobox cannot be redundant, since it provides something that none of the other instances of the name does, nor can do: an "fn" property for an emitted microformat. See also prior MoS discussion. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
And the name for the vcard can be set without making it visible. So the infobox does not actually require it to be visible, so that isn't quite true. Which means the hCard microformat is not lost. -DJSasso (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
As has been explained to you more than once already; hidden values in microformats are deprecated. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
And you have yet to provide any evidence of this. And no search on google seems to show this either. -DJSasso (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
It's right there on the main "principles" page (search for "visible data"; this footnote provides further clarification). It's rather a key principle. I would not expect you to know this without being told, but I would expect you not to repeatedly ignore it when one of WP's most active contributors in the realm of microformats tells you so. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Neither of those pages say its required. Secondly this particular most active contributor if you look at his discussions. (other ones not about the hockey infobox) he has had a tendency to make up things and lie about microformat information. It has gotten him in trouble in the past. So I don't think it out of line to see him proove what he is stating. -DJSasso (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of posting at this page was not so the old brawlers could enjoy a change of scenery. I'm hoping placing the question here will attract the correct new audience. I've linked to the old discussion in my original post, for those interested. --Rsl12 (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Where you said of my above comment "Feel free to state that as an argument for.". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I have no intention of brawling here. Let me just make one point: the name at the top makes the infobox a more self-contained unit that provides basic info and stands on its own. Visually, I think it's a good choice and I don't find redundancy overly problematic. True, the name appears thrice but they serve different purposes: the big page title helps the reader identify the page without going to the smaller script and the one in the lede ensures proper context. Pichpich (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Names are necessary at the top for consistency and to make sure the name of the whatever-it-is is clear. - Denimadept (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear from the title of the article and from the lead sentence? Powers T 18:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The infobox contains a concise list of important information in an easy to read form. It almost always includes information which is already in the article (e.g., date of birth, place of birth, age, ...). I see no reason why the person's name wouldn't be one of the most important pieces of information. One can obviously argue that the entire infobox can be removed, but I feel as though the subject's name is one of the core elements of an infobox, if one exists. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
That is a valid argument, but I would argue that its a concise list of information so you don't have to search through the article to find it, which you would have to do for most information in the infobox. Which is why we place the infobox at the top of the page. However, there is no need to do that for the name of the person since its plastered right at the top of the page as the title and in the lead. Including it a third time in the first inch of the article is extremely redundant and counter to the objective of the infobox being concise. -DJSasso (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
You asked a question, I answered you. This isn't a debate. - Denimadept (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
So, it is the size of the name, proximity, and the number of times the subject's name is repeated in the article that bothers you? I'm fairly certain that much of this can be suppressed by tweaking your own personal CSS file. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

One thing I've not seen yet in this debate is a discussion about WP:Accessibility. What does a screen reader do when it encounters the infobox? Does the rendering sound logical (with or without names)? Or is the repetition of name obvious and silly? I admit I do not have the tools to test this myself. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that since the infobox is placed right underneath the article title, that the article title works as a title for the infobox. There's even a nifty little hr-line which basically binds the infobox to the article title, thus giving the infobox a caption of what it's purpose is. Besides, most articles already have persondata, which basically makes the hCard redundant. No? —Krm500 (Communicate!) 03:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem with the name of the article being at the top of the infobox because basically all of the information in the infobox is found somewhere in the article, usually in the lead paragraph right there next to the infobox. On the other hand, I do have a problem with wikiprojects (or anyone) adding their color of choice to the top and sometimes bottom of infoboxes, but I suppose that is off topic and an issue for a different section. - Josette (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
It is a different issue but I would also favour increased standardization of biography infoboxes. But good luck with that. Nevermind a standard layout, I don't even think it's possible to get a few hundred people to agree on a standard colour(s). Pichpich (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Andrwsc's point about accessibility sounds like a good one. I've invited the folks there to provide feedback. Also, I decided to look around at other web pages to see how they mix together factboxes with articles.

I kind of like the approach of titling infoboxes something like "At a Glance" or "Facts and Figures". If anyone wants to do more research, feel free to add to my list. --Rsl12 (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of titling the infobox "At a Glance" or something similar. It's definitely worth considering. - Josette (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I am a screen reader user; I use JAWS, the most popular Windows screen reader. The table header, which in this case is the name of the subject, is needed so that screen readers detect the infobox as a data table. With a screen reader, it is possible to move around a data table by row or by column, or to go to the end of the table with a single keystroke, which is useful for me. Without the header, the infobox would be detected as a layout table, and it would be impossible to navigate and difficult to exit. I have no problem with the title of the article as the table header; in fact I'd prefer it to stay as it is. A table header of "at a glance" is not informative to me in isolation; what are we glancing at? Redundancy is good in this case, in my opinion. Graham87 03:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd be very wary of treating random news websites as being examples of best practice. Wikipedia in general is ahead of the pack as far as Web standards and accessibility go; simple comparison with what others do may be misleading here. On the specific subject of retitling to "at a glance", were this enforced then it would lead to difficulty in cases where an article has multiple infoboxes (not as uncommon as it may sound). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I was curious about the issue of multiple infoboxes on a page, so I looked up one: Bo Jackson. In this case, the fact that both the football and baseball infoboxes are labeled "Bo Jackson" strikes me as being confusing. Is there any way to incorporate the words "Football" and "Baseball" into the titles? Is anyone aware of other wikipedia articles that have multiple boxes and take a different approach? --Rsl12 (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Here are a few more examples of multiple infoboxes in a single article: Sonny Bono, Jesse Ventura, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Of these, I think the Schwarzenegger article is the least confusing--it moves the "entertainer" infobox down to the "Acting Career" section. --Rsl12 (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
This is doable in the Schwarzenegger case because the article and in particular the "early life" section are long. But I'm not sure we should care since the overwhelming majority of biographies involve people known in one basic area (though the counter-argument is that the exceptions are likely to be high-traffic). In any case, I think the confusion mostly stems from the use of multiple infoboxes, with or without the name-on-top. A good solution for such problems would be to have titles such as Arnold Schwarzenegger's acting career or simply Acting career. Of course, this can be done artificially by using "Acting career" in the name field but I guess this would screw up the hcard. Pichpich (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable to me. Perhaps something like:
Acting Profile of
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Born: January 19xx, etc.
Just a suggestion. --Rsl12 (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Why? Semantics. Accessibility. Infoboxes are data tables and as such should have either: a) a proper caption ("+"), or b) a header-cell that spans all the columns (typically 2 of them). Endorse the comments of Andy, Chris, and Graham; this is modern web-standards goodness. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 14:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Seconded, particularly the input from Graham. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Which Official name to use

Possibly something that needs to be discussed (or a clearer answer pointed to in the guideline), is which "full (official) name" to use. Are we meant to include titles? Middle names? Match the lead sentence's bold name? Match the current pagename (minus any disambig)?

Some of these examples have different wording in all 3 (page title, first bold name, infobox header).

(Please feel free to move this subthread to another talkpage, if that helps). Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

From what I understand, the idea is to let editors choose what they think is best in terms of common name vs. full name and, if relevant, honorific titles. There is a lot of variation but previous attempts to set a standard never got much traction. (one round of such proposals led to the sentence of common vs full in the current guideline) Pichpich (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Conventions for this are typically informal and vary per WikiProject. I'm in favour of using the common name in all cases, with a "full name" parameter as standard in the infobox body. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

To Conclude?

Thanks everyone for the input. It seems there is a clear consensus for titles to be obligatory for infoboxes (though if anyone disagrees, please correct me now). I think there's still some discussion to be had over what exactly the title should contain, though the majority seem to be leaning towards leaving the titles as they are. The original purpose for bringing up discussion here, however, was to determine what to do about the hockey infoboxes, and in that sense, I think we've done enough. If anyone wants to stick around and hash out some possibilities of alternate titles ("Football Career At-a-glance", "Football Profile of xxx", full or common name), I'll stick around as well. If no-one has the energy for it, I will let the issue drop. --Rsl12 (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite. So shall we restore the disputed wording above? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think the present discussion has much relevance for the earlier one.
  • Present discussion: should the name appear at the top? Consensus is yes and in fact this simply confirms support for what the guideline currently says.
  • Prior discussion: should common name be the universal standard and should this be clarified in the guideline? That debate is still deadlocked. Pichpich (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree, we've just reaffirmed the importance of having a header in infoboxes, I don't think the MOS needs to be changed as a result of this discussion. But the hockey infobox probably should change as a result.--Rsl12 (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
No; the earlier discussion was about clarifying that a person's name should be used; it is not optional. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, I see. Currently, the MOS reads: The top text line should be bold and contain the full (official) name of the article's subject; for people common name is optional. Someone at Hockey Infobox Talk interpreted this to mean having a "top text line" was optional. To address that concern, perhaps it's better to reword as such: The top text line should be bold and contain either the full (official) name or common name of the article's subject. --Rsl12 (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
That would help, but I would still like to also include Where the infobox emits a microformat, the name will probably be used as the "formatted name" (fn) (or as the "summary" in hCalendar).; and change Avoid {{PAGENAME}}… to Take care when using {{PAGENAME}}… to reflect current practice. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The microformat seems beyond the scope of this discussion. In my opinion. I know there was a little talk way at the top, but not much more. Perhaps that deserves a new thread? --22:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsl12 (talk • contribs)
Andy, I understand that this is what you would like to have in the guideline but you'll have to make a separate case to impose it. But I don't mind rephrasing the line as Rsl12 suggests just to get rid of the ambiguity about "optional". Pichpich (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
That case is made above. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
It was made but it looks like you fell short in terms of support. Pichpich (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it looks like he was close to a consensus in his final proposal. One sticking point was DJSasso's worrying about making the name mandatory. Since this current discussion clears up that issue, Andy could probably get his proposed changes made without objection now. Still, it's probably better to bring it up separately and make sure everyone's really OK with the PAGENAME and fn additions. In the meantime, I'll change the wording as I suggested above. --Rsl12 (talk) 13:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Dispute

At Template talk:Infobox ice hockey player#Moving on, some editors are disputing the consensus reached here. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Notice of Maps in infobox policy discussion

Please come comment at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Maps_in_infoboxes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Infobox ice hockey player styling

There's a debate about styling issues and the use of {{Infobox}} at Template talk:Infobox ice hockey player#Further cleanup work which may be of interest. Contributions welcome. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Bug in InfoBox for "Model"

I think there is a bug in this box for "location" and "place of birth". Try one in your sandbox and see if you get same result. It might not be exactly those two entries, because I can't exactly remember, so fill one out completely. Maybe I misused a (|). I did it twice and got the same type of mess up. Relatively new here, so I don't know how to fix the underlying template code. Bridgetttttttebabblepoop 11:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This appears related to your user page; I have replied on your talk page. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The colour of rain in Template:Infobox weather

Input is requested at Template talk:Infobox weather#Green precipitation and rain. Thanks. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 05:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

URLs in infoboxes

I propose that we add a paragraph to this MoS page, stipulating that the subject's URL, if included, be shown as, say:

[http://example.com example.com] (rendering as example.com)

and not:

[http://example.com Official website] (rendering as Official website)

This will achieve three things:

  • Display key information (the Infobox's purpose) and not merely a link
  • Make the URL accessible to people seeing a printed copy of the page
  • Enable the URL to be included in any emitted microformat

I will post pointers to this discussion on other project/ talk pages. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Howsabout a template to avoid duplication? (i.e. the link title is the same as the link url minus the protocol-part) --Cybercobra (talk) 11:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Sure; once we've got agreement on style, we can work on technical solutions like that. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Generally they are supposed to be plain text and not live links so that they could be easily copy pasted if I remember correctly from the last discussion. -DJSasso (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any infoboxes which currently use plain text for URLs. The example I give above is easily copyable, but plain text is, of course, not clickable, and so is less useful to our users. Besides, what is supposed to happen is whatever we decide, by consensus, here. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits
I find that hard to believe. In the web version, a clickable link is infinitely more useful than something you have to copy to the address bar; if the display text were the URL as well that would allow it to also be copied if preferable; but people can just rightclick and hit "copy link" anyway. In dead-tree format the URL is appended to the link anyway, so can still be easily copied; that effect would mean that displaying the URL instead of a descriptive text would actually be duplication. There are arguments for both sides of what link text to display. But I find it hard to believe that the recommendation is to not link them at all. There's a reason why URLs are automatically made live by the parser. Happy‑melon 14:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Remove the URL from the infobox altogether, and have it in the external links section. Lugnuts (talk) 08:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with this suggestion (it's what I tend to do and often see others doing), and I disagree with Lugnuts that the URL should be removed from the infobox and placed in the external links: if necessary, it could be in both places. Fences&Windows 14:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Disagree, especially if the article's subject is a website, this is a key point of the article and the infobox should summarise the key points! Captain n00dle\Talk 17:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Are infoboxes not commonly organised as tables like this: Official website: [example.com example.com]? Captain n00dle\Talk 17:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
That's the ideal, but no. Gary Numan, for instance, currently has Website: Official site; while Carol S. Batey has Official website in a cell spanning the full width of the infobox table, hard-coded in {{Infobox writer}}. This proposal will remove such instances. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment In print, there's always the target url after the link text, so using "Official website" should be fine for print. However, if we decide for the plain url, we should probably wrap <span class="nourlexpansion"> around it. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Update: I've created {{Urlw}}, based on the long-standing, but little-used, {{Url}}, to implement the above proposal. If agreed, the logic could be adapted and included directly in infoboxes. See also {{Url}}'s talk page for my proposal to merge the two. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Now merged and renamed as {{URL}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Unresolved

Can we wrap this up, now? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

More guidance for sidebar infobox, esp "part of a series on" or "project" sidebars?

[moved this to another page] --Noleander (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

For anyone curious, Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Guidance for sidebar navboxes (navigation templates)? is where it moved to :) -- Quiddity (talk) 01:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Microformats

FYI there's an RfC currently happening here that may be of interest. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 20:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

At this point, the prevalence of {{infobox}} and templates styled like it means that the recommendation of a 25em / 300px width is followed by approximately no deployed templates. As the MoS is meant to reflect best practice, and the convention has long since moved on, this should be updated to 22em. I'll deploy this in a few days unless there's some serious reason to reconsider. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We should also add that the recommended default image size should be set to "frameless". Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Measurement in "em" is unclear. Measurement in pixels is clear. - Denimadept (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

For text, the "em" units are helpful when font sizes change. For images, then "px" units make the most sense. Unfortunately, infoboxes often contain both text and images. As Chris pointed out, the default used by {{Infobox}} is "22em", which is the most widely used infobox at the moment (AFAICT).Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Standardization = step forward. Pichpich (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Support this (overdue) change. The guideline should reflect the de facto convention. PC78 (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

What are the benefits to the end reader of changing the advice? LunarLander // talk // 01:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I would expect the benefits of updating this advice to reflect current best practise to be rather obvious (unless I'm misreading your question). PC78 (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
What I mean to ask is, what are the benefits of the guideline being 22em instead of 25. The most common practice doesn't always equal the best practice. How will the experience of the end reader be improved? Is 22em wide enough to present information well? Will too many items of infobox content be spread over multiple lines as a consequence? LunarLander // talk // 23:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I still don't fully understand the nature of your comment, particuarly with regard to "the experience of the end reader": this is a guideline for editors to follow. Since most infoboxes already use a width of 22em it's not a change that has any implications for main space content, and without evidence to the contrary we should assume that the common practise is the best practise. PC78 (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. Truth be told, it does not greatly concern me what the default is so long as it's being used and recommended consistently. Right now, the vast majority of our infoboxes use 22em and that seems to work okay. The MoS should reflect that. By all means, if it is thought that widening the default would be a good idea then that discussion can be had; however, right now the problem is that the MoS doesn't reflect the state of the encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 21:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c "The Twilight Saga: New Moon (2009)". Box Office Mojo. IMDb.com, Inc. Retrieved 2009-12-28.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes/Archive_5&oldid=1137421425"