Template talk:Infobox Digicam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Infobox Digicam

Contents 1 A suggestion 2 Camerapedia template 3 Digital single-lens reflex 4 Format 5 Suggestions 6 Image size 7 Raw, TIFF, etc. 8 Rationale

[edit] A suggestion

Would it be feasible to add an image field to this template, say, under the model name (similar to the templates on the Canon_EOS_350D or the Canon EOS 20D pages, which required a bit of a hack to the template)? - Cybjorg 11:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

done. Rama 12:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Camerapedia template

Can we please integrate this template with the current one? I'll give it a shot but wouldn't mind help. -- Simonides 08:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I did it already, and if you follow the link to the Template's Talk page you'll also find an explanation of terms, if necessary. -- Simonides 08:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Digital single-lens reflex

Obviously if it's Infobox Digicam and not Infobox Camera, the article is about a digital camera. But should "single-lens reflex" actually point to digital single-lens reflex camera instead of single-lens reflex camera? --Christopherlin 07:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Format

Also, what about the format of the Digicam infobox compared to {{Infobox Camera}}? --Christopherlin 07:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

I've been adding information and infoboxes on some of the Canon professional digital cameras. However, I've seen that there are a couple of fields missing, namely AE Bracketing, FOV crop (1.0x, 1.6x, etc) and connection method (USB 1.1, USB 2.0, Firewire, serial, etc)

(paragraph moved to #Image size below)

Finally, could we put some fields as "optional"? I've seen some infoboxes that only display the field title if there is something defined in the infobox, otherwise, it doesn't display anything, making the infobox much smaller. Maybe somebody could change the infobox to change this behavior? Finally, I change the link from the "sensor" field, which was pointing to the incorrect article. Marcos Juárez 13:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding optional fields, I've done some work on this template to make some of the fields optional. First, if you see any problems (fields not working when specified, or working in a manner not consistant with how they used to work), let me know. Second, if there's some parameters that you think should be optional, let me know. ;) I'm thinking 90% of these should be optional though; this would allow people who aren't 100% familiar with a camera to make a stub and include the basics of this box without having a bunch of Wiki-parameter names being displayed. Anyways, I'll wait a lil bit before making anymore of these optional. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think there's something at WP:AUM about using loads of if statements. Check out {{Infobox Book}} and {{Infobox Film}} for a different and possibly better way of making fields optional. I don't fully understand why it might be 'better', but it's used in the other infoboxes. If you don't get around to it, I'll give it a try later in the week. Also, some other infoboxes I've seen have almost everything optional. --Christopherlin 00:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, using hiddenStructure is absolutely the worst way to implement optional rows in infoboxes. Basically it breaks accessibility for readers with visual impairments. Take a look at the images I've linked here (best to view them full size, they're small) for a visual example of why they're bad. Regarding WP:AUM, you'll see that's currently going through a two week straw poll being (see the talk page) where only two people are supporting it so far (with over a dozen opposers). I strongly advise against using that (and will take a look at the two templates you mentioned to see if we can get them away from hiddenStructure). —Locke Cole • t • c 01:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I had no idea, and am somewhat surprised to see that. Thanks for the info. --Christopherlin 02:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image size

Also, I noticed that the previous "default" of 200 pixels wide was a bit too small for the pictures, and it also created an unnecesarily long infobox. I tried modifying some of them to 250pixels, and it looks a bit better. Try to see the Canon EOS 30D, for example. Maybe we could make this a "standard", and put all future digicam infoboxes at 250pixels.Marcos Juárez 13:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest using the standard thumb size, which can be user specified, maintains a continuity in wikipedia and is future-proof. --Marc Lacoste 08:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I changed the format back from thumb to borderless on the pages Nikon D80 Nikon D50 and (previously) on Canon EOS 400D. I think a borderless picture with a fixed width of lets say 200 or 250px makes more sense than having a 'thumb style' picture for the following reasons: (1) It's common to have the pictures in info boxes borderless. Can't remember to have ever seen a thumb pic within an info box before (2) Due to this its also in line with all those other digital camera articles (e.g. Canon PowerShot S3 IS) (3) Too many borders. With the 2 thumb borders and the border of the info box, thats 3 borders around that picture. As a result the picture is smaller and it doesn't look good. (4) People don't need the thumb icon on the lower right. Whoever used Wikipedia before knows that clicking on any image brings him to a larger version.

So, for the above reasons I suggest to keep the images in the box borderless with fixes width. The only real argument against this is in my opinion the mentioned lack for users to specify it. But thats negligible in my opinon. What do you think? --Splette ^Talk 16:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

These four reasons sums up in one: the aesthetic of the thumbnail image isn't what you wants. (1) and (2) is just conservatism, don't be afraid of improving wikipedia even if it is not already being done; (3) too many borders is your view, you can specify your skin and they aren't even showed without any skin (my preference is for the borders, but my point is to get it adaptable); (4) the thumb icon is a good guide, especially for first time users who should be in the contributor mind at any moment, nothing should be stated about the end user knowledge.

The whole point is to be adaptable: we can't know what is the user's terminal: a 800px wide old PC, a 3840px wide future like IBM T220/T221, a 48 Pica wide printer, a 160px wide cell phone? We shouldn't use fixed sizes, and the thumb syntax is here to help. see Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability

I found the infobox better with my 300px thumb size because it isn't as high, tall and difficult to read, but it's not my goal to make it look like something I prefer, it helps me to see those sorts of problems. --Marc Lacoste 22:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not afraid of trying something new but when I see it doesn't work, I discard the idea. And for me this just doesn't work. There might be a reason why 99.5% of the infoboxes in wikipedia have no thumb image in them - because the majority of people think it makes more sense that way. Look, even the infobox template has a fixed width for thew image. --Splette ^Talk 03:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It works. It's adaptable, but the look isn't what you are used to. The reason is perhaps nobody have put a thought on it yet. We are here to improve. The infobox template isn't used in the main namespace, except for uncomplete transclusions. But it seems we could agree on a compromise: it would be good to have a thumbnail without the borders. I think I could hack the CSS a bit, and/or refer to competent authorities. It could even be the start of a general reflexion on image sizes and usability on wikipedia - or nothing :) . Other views should be interesting, also. --Marc Lacoste 09:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like a good compromise. --Splette ^Talk 12:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raw, TIFF, etc.

Information on the file formats supported should be added to the template, but I'll leave it to the template experts. I would think that the simple fact that raw, TIFF, and JPEG are supported or not is enough, with detail to be added in the body of the article for each camera, but more detail could be added to the template if desired. Pol098 16:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rationale

Why are we systematically advertising every model of digital camera, regardless of notability? I don't find this entire effort particularly encyclopedic. --P3d0 02:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)