Template talk:Infobox software2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This template was considered for deletion on 2007 January 26. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This is part of Outsourcing of latest release version & date:
Syntax
Copy & paste this exactly:
- Article
<!-- Release version update? Don't edit this page, just click on the version number! -->
{{Infobox Software2|
name =
|logo =
|screenshot =
|caption =
|developer =
|operating_system =
|language =
|genre =
|license =
|website =
}}
- Latest stable release
{{LSR|
article =
|latest_release_version =
|latest_release_date =
}}<noinclude>
➔ Back to article "'''[[]]'''"
</noinclude>
...you also can use {{subst:LSR/syntax}}
- Latest preview release
{{LPR|
article =
|latest_release_version =
|latest_release_date =
}}<noinclude>
➔ Back to article "'''[[]]'''"
</noinclude>
...you also can use {{subst:LPR/syntax}}
Contents |
[edit] Suggested style change
It might look better to right align the first column and left align the second column. e.g.:
| Maintainer: | John Smith |
| Stable release: | 1.0 (January 1, 2005) |
| Preview release: | 2.0 (February 1, 2005) |
| OS: | Unix |
| Genre: | Example |
| License: | GPL |
| Website: | www.foo.bar |
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Heptite (talk • contribs) 08:08, 25 October 2005.
- Looks good. -- Centrx 23:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Slow down fellas
Let's not get ahead of ourselves putting this new template on dozens of software articles without a bit of discussion first. First of all, it's not at all clear that this template is better than Template:Infobox Software. In my view, this template only serves to obscure the handling of release info, making it harder for novices to edit, with very little benefit. Second, it's definitely in the wrong place. Template:Infobox Software2 was a temporary name used during this template's initial development. It should be at Template:Infobox Software with release info or something. Can we get a consensus on the right way to proceed before we apply this template to the hundreds of software articles? --P3d0 10:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- In some instances I think it's definitely better. I moved the Vim (text editor) article to Template:Infobox Software2 because there are times when there are rapid releases of the development version of vim, and sometimes rapid releases of patches for the stable version as well, and I didn't want to fill the Vim (text editor) edit history up with minor changes, I always saw it as an indication that it's an alternate version of the original template. ...I also don't see any problem with the name of the template. -- Heptite (T) (C) (@) 11:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- What's wrong with filling up the edit history with minor changes? They can be filtered out is anyone cares. Also, the significance of the "2" at the end of the template name would be lost on casual editors. I think this whole template makes articles generally less editable by novices, which is the exact opposite of the purpose of templates. --P3d0 17:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- In my opinion, the old infobox is superior. This one is more difficult to use, and just doesn't offer any advantages that are clearly advantages. I'd really like to pull this off the Microsoft Office article, for instance. -- Steven Fisher 18:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Before starting to use this template en masse it has to be well documented with examples of use provided. I am a fairly inexperienced user, and I can easily use Template:Infobox Software because it's well documented. However, this template took me quite a while to understand. --Alf 15:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd opt for simply abandoning this template. I think it was a misguided attempt to solve a problem (many edits to software-related pages) that doesn't exist. --P3d0 19:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Whole heartedly agree. --Steven Fisher 19:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree
- "The problem" of safe editing is real, and is solved by rudimentary information hiding. Blogs protect website chrome from HTML edits, by exposing only a hole into which content is poured. MediaWiki offers protection of a whole article by allowing edits to only a subheaded section. This version editing template, by exposing only the frequently changed version number, is a special case of subheading editing.
- Too bad that the version number isn't editable during a whole-article edit: I'll happily live with it.
- As this template's use grows, software article authors will cut/paste rather than try to spend time "figuring out" this template. I just edited it into Ecasound in about 20 seconds. --Lexein 06:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Problematic articles
I don't know if it's a bug or my misuse of template but, it seems, that if article title contains special characters then this template doesn't work properly. Try for example clicking on version number in article Monotone (software). Vvs9 06:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What to write into the LPR template when there's no preview release?
Should I write something like this:
{{LPR|
article = BearShare
|latest_release_version = n/a
|latest_release_date = -
}}<noinclude>
* Back to article "'''[[BearShare]]'''"
</noinclude>
or shall I leave the page blank like this::
<!--{{LPR|
article = BearShare
|latest_release_version =
|latest_release_date =
}}--><noinclude>
* Back to article "'''[[BearShare]]'''"
</noinclude>
--Patrick Maitland 12:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Please add missing field
When Infobox_software2 article was created, the |platform= param was left out. Please add it back. --Lexein 06:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Document Name field as Mandatory
If the name field is blank, then all pages with a blank name field use the same Latest Stable Release/ template, and therefore share version numbers! When editors add logo image, and remove the name as redundant, this breaks both version number templates. --Lexein 21:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
