Wikipedia talk:Infobox standardisation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(see also: Wikipedia:No infobox standardization|Talk)

[edit] To standardize, or not to standardize?

That is the question.

Before we discuss what the standard should be, I think we should discuss whether there should be a standard at all. Should all infoboxes in Wikipedia be based on a single CSS class, with no extra specific CSS allowed in each infobox?

Comments? --- hike395 07:26, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

There should be no standardization. You can find a porposal for this policy here: Wikipedia:No infobox standardization, shortcut: WP:NIS. --Fenice 10:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Which is up for deletion, and currently headed for the big VfU in the sky. -Harmil 02:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Hamil is right, Wikipedians seem to support the standardization to an almost ridiculous extent. Seven people have so far confirmed that they do want infoboxes standardized. Seven people is a lot. It is in some cases sufficient to get an article promoted to featured status. However, the instructions that will be created here will chase away hundreds of users. And these are users that work on projects, they are experts in their field. This proposal will be the biggest blow Wikipedia has ever received. It is a text-book-example of counterproductiveness. People, the knowledge about what happens to organizations with too many instructions is out there. Go and research what happens if you support this proposal to standardize infoboxes.--Fenice 05:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

• Yes, standardization for this purpose is good.
• No extra CSS should be allowed by default.
• Extra CSS should be allowed via some mechanism for exceptional cases.
• It would help to see an example of the proposal, even if it's not ready for prime time.
• I'd love to see theming taken into account well.

-Harmil 02:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

quote Hamil: Yes, standardization for this purpose is good. Can you tell us why you think it could be good?--Fenice 05:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

That's meant to be humorous, right? If not, I suppose I could list a short selection of the reasons:

• Infoboxes are part of the UI of Wikipedia, and as such should have a consistent feel.
• Skins should affect all infoboxen equally.
• Improvements to CSS and related technologies can't even be discussed reasonably without centralized points of policy and discussion.
• There are UI and accessibility issues that should be considered outside of any special interest within WP.
• Right now, anyone with a valid concern about the way Wikipedia does infoboxen gets told to go talk to a few dozen probjects.
• Projects that maintain infoboxen should have a central point of contact to make each other aware of their needs.
• Developers could use the concentration of discussion to see what features could best serve those who build an infobox. For example, would structured data help? No way to know without searching dozens of projects discussions.

That's just a short list, but I think you see the idea. It all centers around improved communication between projects that use infoboxen and the ability to bring up issues centrally that are of interest to all of the projects that maintain one. -Harmil 12:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Similar infoboxes should be similar

Yes there should be some general guidelines for the infoboxes - but there should be flexibility within those guidelines to accomodate the differing community of users that use those infoboxes in thier wikiprojects. Personally, I think they are migrating that way now - without any standardization and this page is a complete waste of time - see BC/AD debate - However, there should not be a you must use this style policy at wikipedia. 152.163.100.135 13:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• If there are any detailed guidelines; firm, or otherwise, I am afraid people would point to them, there would be fights between editors preferring the beauty of a template (who may sometimes choose some values ad-hoc) to more to-the-letter editors preferring an infobox adhere to some established guideline (i.e. that infoboxes should have a certain background color, style for headings, alignment, font, border, etc). There are times where consistency is good.. infoboxes that cover some groups of similar topics should generally have a similar look, but creating a standard over all infoboxes could be rather harmful. What is the goal of standardization? Consistency for consistency's sake which can be excessive is hardly necessary.. It makes sense for each of those WikiProjects to set the standards for all the related infoboxes and templates. --Mysidia 17:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I think you hit the nail on the head. Infoboxes for related groups should have a very common look. Everything else should only need to follow some broad guideline. Maybe a good team effort would be to help decide what groups should be tied together. Should the infoboxes for colleges, high schools and weight loss schools be based on some commonality? Should all article infoboxes for items in some higher level category like transportation have a common feel? Vegaswikian 19:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I like this idea very much: it increases the overall professional look of Wikipedia, while still being practical to implement. Under this scheme, finely-tuned infoboxes such as the Tree of Life taxobox can remain unchanged, while some of the miscellaneous infoboxes can be unified. I've often wanted a "geographical location" infobox, perhaps based on the mountain infobox. -- hike395 22:22, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Each WikiProject that uses an infobox should make these decisions themselves. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:29, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

And how should a new project know what to even start with? Just pick a random other project to copy, thus creating an evolutionary tree of infobox styles? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a group of people who care about infoboxes worry about them, and let the projects worry about what they have to worry about? -Harmil 15:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

It would make a lot of sense to make help available. But I don't think anyone disagrees with that. I may be wrong, but the main point of contention seems to be that a policy or set of guidelines is the wrong way to do it. Lower in this talk page is a proposal for "Wikiproject infoboxes" so that people interested in excellent infoboxes can determine a set of best practices or whatever, but not as policy. That seems like a good plan. The tone of its participants would be more along the lines of "Here is a smorgasboard of infobox delight that we have prepared for you, but ignore it if you like" rather than "This is what you shall put in your articles". Take for example Wikipedia:Picture tutorial which consists of examples and advice. --Yath 15:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disagree with standardization

Agree with UtherSRG. Maurreen (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

There should be no formal policy, to be foisted on people. At best, it should be policy simply to make it up to the individual project to decide. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:57, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Standardization of Infoboxes

[edit] Infobox class

The infobox class is currently defined in the common.css stylesheet. There is also an "infobox bordered" subclass, used most notably by Template:Infobox Country, although some large templates don't use borders, notably Template:Infobox U.S. state. Do we need both? Should one be standard, or should one be used in certain circumstances? Do any changes need to be made to them?

Each WikiProject that uses an infobox should make these decisions themselves. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:29, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

I think a single choice is enough. The Country-box is way to large. It should be deleted.--Fenice 12:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the Country box is just fine, take a look at an article using it like Austria; in practice, it only takes about a third of the horizontal space on part of a page. It is larger than some infoboxes, but it provides a good bit of standard information conveniently. --Mysidia (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed Fenice, a single class would make sense, and increase responsiveness to skinning, and could also ease translation to non-WWW media. -Harmil 12:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Captions

Captions are headings that float above the border of the table. Most notably used by Template:Infobox Country. Doesn't allow for colour bands, as used in, for exmaple, Template:Album.

Each WikiProject that uses an infobox should make these decisions themselves. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:29, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

I think there should be a uniform greyish colorband behind all captions. So I suggest changing the style-sheet accordingly.--Fenice 12:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

This seems like a fine thing, and I'm not convinced that color bands and captions are exclusive. Anyone care to work up a user sub-page counter-example? -Harmil 12:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Colours

Wikipedia:Infobox lists dozens of colours assigned to different WikiProjects. With hundreds of infoboxes, and only a few distinguishable colours, do they help the user in any way?

Each WikiProject that uses an infobox should make these decisions themselves. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:29, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

I would not use any colors besides grey. You will increase the damage done by this project considerably if you go as far as imposing colors on people. Green is a color opposed by some users, dirty yellow is also a color some don't like, not to speak of the ... beige which is used frequently. Also you will have to exclude pink as being effeminate and so on. If you want your proposal to pass quickly and easily grey is the color to use, maybe also a very light pinkish beige will pass.--Fenice 12:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

My feeling on colors is this: If you are going to use a color, it should convey meaning. If meaning is to be established, it should be done centrally (that is, as a collaboration of the interested parties), but with enough flexibility to allow projects to do what they need. For example, you might assign a set of hues to each major area of Wikipedia and then allow projects to use any saturation and value combination for their hue range. For example, taxboxes might be assigned three hues each for animals, plants and everything else, but they might choose to use value to indicate the depth of an entry in the taxonomic tree. That would be their call, and have no impact on the overall color scheme. -Harmil 12:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other standards

Such as emboldening data labels, acceptable widths etc.

Each WikiProject that uses an infobox should make these decisions themselves. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:29, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Width:should be as narrow as possible, maximum 50 %. Only one image should be allowed. In case of heraldry, an exception can be granted for one single coat of arms.--Fenice 12:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Fenice here, but to be even more restrictive: the default page width should be assumed to be no more than 800px. Tables that take up more than 250px should be re-considered (keep in mind that the WP framing sucks up a lot of space at lower resolutions). -Harmil 12:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Naming conventions

Wikipedia:Infobox templates suggests "Name the template [[Template:Infobox Somesubject]] (Somesubject should be in the singular)."

Each WikiProject that uses an infobox should make these decisions themselves. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:29, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

The project name should be allowed as name, and also the name of the main article. It should be mandatory to list the names of existing infoboxes on one page for overview.--Fenice 12:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the existing guideline makes sense. Question for UtherSRG: what specific aspect of the existing guideline do you find onerous? -Harmil 12:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Which is more important? That it is in an infobox or that it is for a project? Vegaswikian 16:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vertical subheadings

Some existing infoboxes use vertical subheadings. These should also have a greyish subheading. Maybe a lighter shade of grey.--Fenice 12:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Fenice, can you give an example? -Harmil 12:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Color of box

All boxes should use #efefef as a background color.--Fenice 12:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I would disagree here. I think that there should be a standard background color for each of several categories of box (e.g. alerts, help, category browser, etc), but the default (for most sidebar-type uses) should be no background color at all. -Harmil 12:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Frame

I like the border in this template: template:European cinema--Fenice 12:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

It's nice, but mostly it works because of the background. I'm not sure if it would work in the general case. -Harmil 12:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Will this work?

Were it not for the principle Wikipedia:Assume good faith, I might harbour a suspicion that the purpose of this page is to provide a justification to point to when making changes to templates for which there is no consensus.

I don't think this is going to work. Widely-used templates are the result of collaboration among many editors over long periods of time. Someone who makes drastic changes to a template without a consensus of the editors who use that template is going to get reverted, and pointing to a supposed guideline is not going to impress any experienced editor.

The way to make changes that affect widely-used templates is to find some way of communicating to affected editors (e.g. a WikiProject if there is one); notify editors in that subject area, make mock-ups of how the articles should look, make a case for why your version is better, be patient, and be prepared to cut your losses if you don't succeed.

See for example the history for Template:Taxobox begin [1]. This is a template that appears on more than 11,000 articles. Its current form has been arrived at by discussion over a couple of years; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archives. Of course its appearance can be improved: the colours are garish, there are unnecessary rules. But the editors who have tried to change it without getting consensus for the change have so far failed in their attempts, despite appealing to "style guides", "in-house style", "wiki style" and so on.

So however this page turns out, it is not going to be a substitute for the actual hard work of persuading editors that a change is good. Gdr 13:57:47, 2005-08-13 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Gdr. Some of the infoboxes have been designed through several years of crafting and concensus building. Any decisions reached here will be ineffective at dominating the exsting standards. Any changes to long-standing structures will come about only when the communities that built and maintain those structures are actively engaged in the process of change. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:36, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

I believe this discussion is useful to have, regardless of the outcome. As I see it, there are a range of possible consensus outcomes:

1. We agree to have a global infobox class. In this case, Ed can point to this page when people ask him if there is a consensus. This question has come up again and again and again (I asked Ed this myself, when he tried to change the Mountain infobox)
2. Intermediate standardization: we decide to abandon the idea of a global infobox, but decide that some intermediate standardisation (for example, per subject topic). I'm going to make a prediction --- in this case, all of the standard well-tuned infoboxes will remain untouched, and we'll try to take some of the more obscure infoboxes and make them look like the well-tuned ones. For example, there is a dispute at Template:Texas, trying to make it look like the other state nav boxes. This may help solve such disputes quickly by setting down some guidelines and gold-standard infoboxes.
3. No standardization: the principle of "WikiProject sovereignty" is upheld by consensus, as a policy. Future standardization disputes can be nipped in the bud: WikiProject participants can just point to this page and say "No".

Or, some even more clever compromise that someone can suggest, which may be even better.

In any event, by having something written down we can (almost) all agree to, we can reduce the number of silly infobox style disputes that seem to be happening in the last few months.

--- hike395 00:08, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

If those are the choices, #1 is utterly unacceptable, and #3 highly preferable to me. #2 should fall reaosnbly to #3 - there is no reason why Texas articles should look different than Florida articles (for example) but, and here's the biggest kicker, I'm not involved in the crafting of those articles, so it's none of my business what they look like until such time as I get invovled. Then, if I have questions or problems, I'll look at the existing discussions, bring my experience to the table, and ask some questions for clarity. Then perhaps something will change - either the style will or I will. This is not what Ed did with ToL. Ed came to the dicussion wanting to move from HTML-style templates to wikicode templates. I grumbled, but admitted wikicode in template would be better, and all othrs seemed to have some range of agreement, but Ed went further than the understanding we seemed to have and included toccoulor (the predecessor to the "infobox standard" he's been pushing). I objected (as I think some others did to) and the templates were recrafted. At least twice, perhaps more times, Ed has come back and changed the taxobox formt without discussion and, apparantly, without remorse that he was stepping on toes.

I do agree that *some* amount of standardization needs to happen. Taxoboxes already have their standards and their crafters and their fora for discussion. I see no need for this forum. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:45, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

#2 is the status quo. Most individual projects already have a standard template or text box. So there are no alternatives left but #3. Ed should present his infoboxes here so we can vote on them. A solid base has been laid to put through a uniform grey infobox (I hear Eds boxes are grey). I think that grey is an excellent color for infoboxes. We will not have any problems of putting that through. Like there are some people who have opposed green or dirty yellow or .... beige in the past, but grey should get a large consensus.--Fenice 12:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not here, not now, not this way

I just got through voting Keep and NOOB (None Of Our Business) for this page on VfD. It's proposed policy, not an article, therefore VfD has no control over it.

That said, I stand opposed to this proposal. It is ill-conceived and incomplete, for one. There is no point in urging a single style on all boxes by way of the naked word. Who will bell the cat? The right way to do such a thing is to develop the actual style and promote it.

I agree that the current hodgepodge of box styles is a graphic design nightmare and a public shame. I addressed this problem in concrete (though partial) fashion by designing the {{divbox}} template. This permits anyone to create a standard full-width box with essentially any content. I did not attempt to ram it into policy or the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, though; I simply created it and used it. It has now been picked up by others and serves in its little way to standardize some types of boxes.

Some interest has been expressed in a more infobox-like template, and as I resolve technical issues, I may create such a thing. If it is technically superior to existing solutions, it will thrive and be used more often, to the exclusion of other designs. By "technically superior" I mean to include the whole range of qualities desired in such a tool: ease of use, flexibility, attractiveness to the eye, and many more.

Meanwhile, a whole set of tag-box templates has been created revolving around Featured Article process. I'm sorry they did not base their design around {divbox}, but they came up with some nice stuff just the same. Any competing standard will have to be markedly superior to displace these templates.

Finally, a major obstacle to standardization is the template transclusion mechanism itself. Note that not all standardization can be done in CSS -- even if this were wise. For example, if consensus demanded that all infoboxes display a 32px logo in the upper left corner, this could be facilitated with templates, but CSS cannot impose it, or even provide for it. Templates are required.

As matters stand, template transclusion is a cranky, balky, hack that occasions much grumbling among the technically-inclined. Effective standardization in this area is best handled by a cascade of templates, corresponding to classes in object-oriented languages; the final appearance as rendered on an article page might be the result of five levels of transclusion. Given current engine development, this does raise issues, and many users are adamantly opposed to multiple transclusion, even if they do not know what to call it, or have unrealistic notions of its costs and benefits.

Template code is, frankly, shitty, with virtually no capacity to perform work. Branching and looping are essentially absent; parameter passing laughably weak. Until the template mechanism is elevated at least to the level of a primitive scripting language, the only practical way to develop most design elements will be to hand-code them.

I cannot finish my comment without noting that standardizing visual element display is a task demanding a great deal of experience in two widely separated disciplines: coding ("computer programming") and graphic design. And it must be done with respect towards the system architecture -- failure of which has led to the current outcry over multiple transclusion. I daresay I am one of the very few members of this community who has all the needed skills; and I know we are regularly outshouted by the mob.

Some things ought to be the objects of open collaborative design; this is not one of them. — Xiong熊talk* 23:43, 2005 August 13 (UTC)

I heartily endorse this summary of the situation. If someone is interested in standardizing the infoboxes, offer a superior template and evangelize it, and accept that not everyone will use it. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Each project its own

As stated five times above, "Each WikiProject that uses an infobox should make these decisions themselves". Well, that's kind of true, there's no point to attempting to force wikiprojects to do anything. Still, Template Standardisation worked out fine, so in principle standardizing infoboxen is probably a good idea. What I would propose, therefore, is to get people from two or three WikiProjects to discuss and accept a standard layout and color scheme. Then advertise this proposed standards to the community, and let each other WikiProject decide for itself whether or not they will adopt it as well. Radiant_>|< 08:53, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

There is disagreement about how fine Template Standardisation worked out. Maurreen (talk) 09:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

By very few people that got upset because they didn't get their way. By looking at the number of templates that use CoffeeRoll I think we can say that it was a success. violet/riga (t) 17:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Color is used by many WikiProjects to mean very specific things. For example: In elementboxes color denotes chemical series, in battleboxes the continent where the battle was fought, in taxoboxes the kingdom the living thing belongs too. 'Standardizing' that would make those infoboxes less useful. As would 'standardizing' the layout, given that different infoboxes have different needs. Template Standardization is not a good analogy given that the main reason why there was a need for that was due to the fact that talk page templates are all right next to each other. Infoboxes are not like that. Standardization would just make the creation and improvement of infoboxes unnecessarily constraining. --mav 02:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I would argue that colour is utterly useless. I have never look at a page on a species and thought "oh, it's pink, it must be an animal". I've either known it already, or looked at where it says "Kingdom: Animalia". Colouring on most infoboxes is purely aesthetic. ed g2s • talk 14:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, it is ridiculous to argue that colour is utterly useless. Consistent color schemes convey useful information - can you imagine a map of political results on television with L, C and D instead of colors on all the districts (or R & D if in the US). It would be beyond understandable. Although color in this way can also convey misinformation (see for example the county color map for the recent Bush/Kerry election which conveys much greater numerical support than is true) - properly understood it can convey useful information (that Kerry's support was more concentrated in metropolitan areas to continue the previous example). On the Harry Potter poject color is used to convey loyalty, for Dumbledore, for Voldemort or unknown - this is a useful distiction that conveys immediate meaning without haveing to read "Loyalty: Unknown" in the infobox. 64.12.116.7 20:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Levels

What too many people seem to have forgotten is that standardisation can be done at a variety of different levels. We could be massively strict about the infoboxes, or we could give very loose guidelines. I think that the latter is probably the best way to go. I'd like to see guidelines as simple as saying that they are generally located at the top-right of the article and that the associated WikiProject looks after them. It might go so far as to suggest not using an internal border and having 0.42em as a margin. violet/riga (t) 18:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Yep - I agree. Keep it simple and avoid top down approaches. I see nothing wrong with having different styles and in fact having different styles act as a visual cue as to where the reader is (an elementbox looks a lot different than a taxobox or battlebox). Standardization should only be within subject areas (the whole purpose of WikiProjects) and by the consent of similar WikiProjects such as Tree of Life (and it's descendants) and Dog Breeds. --mav 02:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I always thought reading the title of the page was a better indication as to where a reader is. Have you ever arrived at a page and thought "I recognise that box! This must be an article about a battle", before remembering that you'd just clicked on "Battle of Trafalgar". The same argument applies for project colours. They just don't help. ed g2s • talk 18:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Ed is right, but for a different reason. A proposal with different colors will not get enough votes. I would stick to one inoffensive innocuous color, such as grey or light beige. No one has as of yet designed an alternative proposal to Ed's design. Maybe someone can come up with a colored version, so we can offer more choices for people to vote on.--Fenice 18:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A minimal, simple proposal

Given the extreme dislike that the large majority of people have for standardizing infoboxes, and given the extensive discussion of m:instruction creep, I have a minimal proposal that still urges people to make similar infoboxes look similar:

If you want to redesign an existing infobox, first bring it up on the appropriate WikiProject.

If you want to create a new infobox, look through the list of infoboxes at Wikipedia:Infobox, find an infobox whose subject is similar to the one you want to create, and copy it to start the design of your new infobox. Try to keep the design of your infobox similar to infoboxes with similar subject matter.

If you create a new infobox, or change an existing one, make sure that the latest version is shown at Wikipedia:Infobox. If there is a corresponding WikiProject, please list it next to the infobox.

This three paragraph standard preserves the right of WikiProjects to do their own design, but urges people to at least look at other infoboxes that are similar.

I hope that this is satisfactory to (almost) everyone. Comments?

-- hike395 04:37, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Your basic assumption is wrong. The support for a standardization in this field is overwhelming and proposals to reduce instruction creep in that area are completely counterproductive. See:Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/No infobox standardization seven votes for standardization. You better develop a set of rules that cracks down on the useless libertarians around here.--Fenice 04:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what purpose a guideline like this would serve. Wouldn't an extra line or two at Wikipedia:Infobox serve this purpose? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 10:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] We have many good reasons for standarizing infoboxes.

Maybe we should also wreck our brains a little and think about why we want to standardize infoboxes. Good reasons: --Fenice 18:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

1. we have nothing else to do.
2. we want to create a solid base for lots of editwars.
3. we ignore all literature on bureaucracy, because it is too new and has not hit our libraries yet.
4. Wikipedia does not have an article on over-bureaucratization yet - so we need to create a good example for this text.
5. We enjoy annoying lots of users by imposing instructions on them amd we do want to cut back on the number of editors here.
6. we are not aware that standards for infoboxes do not have any benefits.
7. Wikipedia is growing way too fast, due to lack of donations we need to impede each others work a little so we can slow growth.
8. We wish to impose our own group's view onto the work of others.
9. We want to kill innovation since there is only One True Way to best display tabular data
10. Our goal is to make articles on elements look the same as articles on dog breeds. What's the difference?

to be continued by whoever can think of any really good reasons:

[edit] Watch the birdie

This is no longer a debate of whether all infoboxes should look alike, or even follow a similar theme. (As I said above, I think good design is self-propagating, so no need for a policy; only for good design. But perhaps I'm wrong.) The battle being fought right now is whether VfD can be used as a tool to strangle ongoing debate over proposed policy. We must oppose this very strongly. The logical outcome of the extension of VfD power is that all policy will be decided within VfD. This must not be permitted. — Xiong熊talk* 06:22, 2005 August 16 (UTC)

How do you think you can avoid that? The precedent has already been set at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/No infobox standardization. People already do use the VfD to make policy dicisions. --Fenice 06:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's a big issue. The VFD is currently going down as a nearly universal Keep as a ongoing discussion and policy proposal; there are no deletion criteria that apply to this proposal. On the other hand, Wikipedia:No infobox standardization is going down as a possible delete as a violation of WP:POINT and as a POV fork. VFD seems to be working just fine, at least insofar as this is concerned. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

VfD is obviously not working, Man in Black. If you apply the standard that a policy proposal should be open to discussion and not be decided on VfD you would have to apply that same standard to all proposals, not just the one that accomodate your POV.--Fenice 09:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I think my POV on this issue is clear. Please assume good faith, especially before accusing someone who agrees with you of POV-pushing. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Very funny Man in Black, we're all rotfl. Did you just forget that it was you who started to accuse me of POV-pushing??--Fenice 10:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

This thread of conversation has ceased to be productive, and indeed is distracting from the issue at hand. I won't be continuing it further. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 10:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, horray, what a great idea. There is really no need to attack other users, Man in Black. It is not what a discussion page is for, no matter what you think of the subject.--Fenice 10:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting the discussion

Xiong is correct, above, we are now no longer discussing the topic at hand, but instead

1. Whether we should use imperatives in proposed policy titles
2. Whether VfD should be used to cut off debate on disfavored proposed policies.

Fellow editors, I'm begging you please:

1. Stay cool
2. Split off the discussion about imperative titles to Wikipedia:Perhaps we should use imperatives in proposed policy titles?
3. Keep the discussion about VfD power at VfD, or, failing that, some suitable other Wikipedia page.

So, now there are clear locations for each of the discussions, no one is censored, and those who choose to participate in each discussion can do so freely.

Thank you very much from the bottom of my heart.

-- hike395 06:43, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should create a policy proposal that policy proposals cannot be put up on VfD, but need to be given a certain amount of time for discussion. That would get the VfD-part out of the way. It may pass: there are currently about seven people who think VfD is the place to decide a proposal, and about thirty who don't. So the policy would pass by a narrow margin if we require a two-third-majority.--Fenice 06:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Sure, please go ahead and start a separate proposal for that on another page. -- hike395 07:05, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

No, I won't. it is just a suggestion for someone who is interested in the VfD discussion.--Fenice 07:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on limited proposal as it currently stands

Does anyone have any comments on the proposal as it currently stands in the project page? Thanks! -- hike395 07:08, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Ok...

1. Infobox standardization is an extremely bad idea because, unlike the standards of written language that are encoded in the MOS, we are inventing them as we go along, and 3 or 4 years of experimentation is far too little time to create something so good that it deserves to be frozen.
2. No small-project infobox has been held up as a paragon of design and informativeness, so I can only conclude that the creators of this page think we ought to design an infobox by committee. Child safety seats should be designed by committee. Encyclopedia articles, I doubt it.
3. The first two paragraphs as they read now are suggestions for where to get ideas. That sort of thing is rather nice. They ought to be on a page like Wikipedia:Infobox showcase where the best examples from the various projects are lovingly displayed. They're out of place on a "policy" page.
4. The prescriptive third paragraph says to put new infoboxes on Wikipedia:Infobox. Ok. Better yet, let people who are interested in the history and taxonomy of infoboxes seek them out and display their favorites, and leave the people who are making and using them alone.

I can only assume that the motives of this article's creator(s) are twofold: first, to create great infoboxes, and second, to bureaucratically drag every wikiproject with a box into a giant committee to do the work. My suggestion: go ahead and create Wikipedia:Infobox bazaar or festival or whatever, and let people who are passionate and motivated join you voluntarily. And move this article to the historical archive. --Yath 07:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

A different idea: As all of the discussion on this page shows, there is great hostility to any top-down approach for standardizing Infoboxes. Why not let this page die, and then create an Infobox WikiProject instead. That project should first of all work on documenting existing infoboxes, and existing techniques and styles for creating infoboxes, as well as fixing many of the current infoboxes that have problems (e.g. I've seen several infoboxes that have no external margins so the article text goes flush against the outline of the infobox). There should also be more work on documenting the problems and workarounds for all templates (e.g. Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates). Finally, there should be work done on some guidelines (definately not standards) on the various components and design elements of infoboxes. BlankVerse ∅ 07:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I've read all this talk page, and frankly not a lot of it makes sense. This summary is the closest to what I feel - i.e. a collection of infoboxes highlighting good design is good, any prescriptions on infoboxes is bad. Infoboxes covering very different things need different information in different formats, locations, colours and fields. Could infoboxes for a country, a comicbook superhero, a chemical elemenent, a railway locomotive, a Hollywood movie, and a fish all fit into the same style and still be as clear as they are? I highly doubt it. Thryduulf 13:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that due to difference in data, people will have to exert some stylistic control so the data is legible, but this can all be done within the confines of a general appearance that matches the selected Wikipedia skin. The main problem is users getting carried away designing their infoboxes from scratch, getting approval from the handful of editors on their WikiProject, and then becoming too attached to their designs. ed g2s • talk 13:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

BlankVerse's idea about creating an infobox wikiproject is the smartest thing I've seen about this subject. Maurreen (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that an infobox wikiproject is also a good idea, better than my simple proposal --- I withdraw my proposal in favor of that idea. --- hike395 16:07, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scope

The above notice was removed from the project page with a comment to keep comments to talk - but no comment along this line was then included in talk. I agree with the above sentiment - this attempt at forcing a single standardization on all infoboxes should fail miserably. This standarization proposal is another policy that would be used to browbeat new editors into submitting to changes they don't agree with since what they proposed was "against policy" and, unlike more experienced editors, they would not know to simply ignore proposed policies. 64.12.116.135 10:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Right now, there's nothing to browbeat anyone with anyway, so I don't see the point of a ridiculously over-the-top and POV textbox above and beyond Template:proposed. (Incidentally, I was the one who deleted it.) - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 10:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion - I just wanted to preserve the discussion that an over-the-top warning may be deserved if this proposal fails (though probably it will just get the boring failed proposal template :) 64.12.116.135 11:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the usual template will do the job, boring as it may be. Plus, "Contrary to our foundation principles"? Puh-lease. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 11:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

How serious is it? What will be the effect on our Community if VfD is allowed to control policy? This particular policy page is perhaps minor, perhaps trivial; but ought we not be permitted to discuss it? I see many edits on this talk page, many voices heard. Do we all understand that a downvote for the page itself implies deletion of this talk, too?

I think it is a grave threat to the character of our Community that VfD's scope continues to increase. Some -- and I'm among them -- think VfD should not exist at all; it's a hack, a stopgap measure created in reaction to a perceived need, that has over time become institutionalized. But I'll be damned if every time someone makes a policy proposal we allow VfD a chance to choke off the whole discussion in five days.

The notice is not over-the-top. It has nothing whatever to do with the contents of this proposal (which, strictly speaking, were empty at last viewing). It has everything to do with the permissible scope of VfD. Nomination of policy pages is evil and must be opposed with maximal effort. Please do not remove this notice until the illegal VfD nomination runs its course. — Xiong熊talk* 16:57, 2005 August 17 (UTC)

[edit] Team

Implementing the new proposal will be a huge chore. We need a team of tough uncompromising promoters to change the existing infoboxes. They should preferably be endowed with a roll-back-function (this feature is currently only available for administrators, even though a proposal has been set up to change this). There are thousands of templates to change and the resistence to be expected among ordinary users is immense. In order to create a proposal that is realistic we should create a team before the page is put up for a vote. Also we need to warn RfA and RfM to increase their capacities beforehand because these places will be jammed with requests. If we have as a rough estimate 500 templates to change and a team of five people who each adjust one template per day (on average) the change should be over in three months. During this period RfA and RfM need to increase their capacities. Also note that some projects have as many as ten members. In order not to break the three-revert-rule, the team should work hand in hand and should outnumber team-members.--Fenice 12:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Sign up here if you are interested in implementing the standardized infoboxes:

What on earth do WP:RFA and WP:RFM have to do with infobox standardizing? Radiant_>|< 12:57, August 16, 2005 (UTC) IHBT IHL ISHAND. Radiant_>|< 13:00, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I think Fenice is expecting a lot of edit wars, although I doubt it will be a problem if there is a policy. I don't think brute force is the way to do this. ed g2s • talk 13:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Glad to hear you say, "I don't think brute force is the way to do this." You earn respect for the help you have given to many users in building thier infoboxes (most recently Template:UK constituency infobox & Template:Infobox Cricketer); the cleanup of users html or conversion of their html tables to wikitables; etc. There is concern because you have pushed the toccolours standard on unsuspecting users, including me, who didn't realize that toccolours wasn't a mandated style from the wikipedia programmers. I am encouraged by your new class and its options. However, any proposal needs to recognize that wikiprojects may decide to go a different direction and as long as they are consistent in the related subject areas we should be careful not to be too dictitorial or "force a standard." This is especially true where the deviations from the infobox style (or whatever the final style is) are deviations that are generally consistent with the overall look and feel of wikipedia, or for templates that have been discussed, edited and refiend by a decent number of editors (for example the taxoboxes). 205.188.117.8 03:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The taxoboxes have indeed been discussed, edited and refined by a number of editors, but having browsed through 13 pages of archived disucssion, there is only one discussion of appearance, between myself and UtherSRG, in which no other editors got involved. Since then many editors have made similar edits to myself, each time being reverted by Uther, claiming that the current design was the work of great refinement. The real problem in this case seems to be that he just really doesn't like grey. ed g2s • talk 12:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Please don't turn this into a clash of personalities. Gdr 18:07:17, 2005-08-22 (UTC)

Read Max Weber, Ed. I will be costly. This was so 150 years ago and it still is so today. I also agree that brute force is not the way to this, but of course a standardization per se is much like brute force...not that the projects are going to have much of a choice. But in the implementation process, force should of course be limited. Talking to people is certainly the more appropriate way.--Fenice 13:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Appearance

Just to clarify that the clarify that the infobox class is not fixing in stone the appearance of all infoboxes. It should take on a suitable appearance for each Wikipedia skin, the point being that it is up to the user to customise their visual experience of Wikipedia, not a handful of editors of a certain WikiProject. This is the reason why we use a XHTML/CSS model. Style should be separated from content. ed g2s • talk 13:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps some examples of the different styles in actual use side by side would be helpful. 205.188.117.8 03:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that you should explain everything that is included in the infobox class, and then compare that class to some of the other classes implemented on the Wikipedia, for those who are not that familiar with XHTML/CSS. BlankVerse ∅ 19:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, here goes:

infobox { border: 1px solid #aaaaaa; background-color: #f9f9f9; /* These first two lines set the monobook skin colour, would be different for other skins */ margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 1em; /* A bit of space from the text */ padding: .2em; /* A bit of space from the border */ float: right; /* Self explanatory */ clear: right; /* Makes it drop below another other right-floating elements */ } .infobox tr { vertical-align: top; /* Top-alignment is clearer when data spans multiple lines. Can be overridden if middle alignment is required */ } .infobox caption { margin-left: inherit; /* Corrects centering of caption */ } .infobox.bordered { border-collapse: collapse; /* Optional bordered class with lines around cells */ } .infobox.bordered td, .infobox.bordered th { border: 1px solid #aaaaaa; /* Continuation of above */ }

Hopefully this will help people understand what we're doing, mostly getting rid of a lot of badly written CSS/HTML, and replacing with a simple class="infobox".

Compare with:

div.thumb div { border: 1px solid #ccc; padding: 3px !important; background-color: #f9f9f9; font-size: 94%; text-align: center; overflow: hidden; } div.tright { clear: right; float: right; border-width: .5em 0 .8em 1.4em; }

for thumbnailed images and:

.toc { border: 1px solid #aaa; background-color: #f9f9f9; padding: 5px; font-size: 95%; }

for the table of contents. By putting all the style in stylesheets, not the article text, it gives users much more flexibility in setting their own style. ed g2s • talk 00:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Next you probably need to show how the infobox class can help. I'll even nominate a template that I think has problems, {{Routeboxca2}}, which is used on California State Route 1 and about 70 other articles (see [2]). I assume that one of the things the template needs is "margin-left: 1em;" to avoid having the article text flush against the border of the template. [Now if you'd also tell me how to change my monobook.css so that the text is ragged right, instead of being left and right-justified...] BlankVerse ∅ 09:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

This is one of the points of standardisation - if we use a proper style for this in the skin (MediaWiki:Monobook.css and for the other skins), then you can over-ride this with your own definition of the class "infobox" - in your case, at User:BlankVerse/monobook.css. If we don't use CSS standardisation, you (and any other reader generally) do not have that control.

James F. (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I recently found out how to override what I considered a very annoying color for the "you've got a new message" box, which is the reason that you see that I now have a personal monobook.css. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any place that explains all the features of the monobook skin, so the only people who can do the modifications usually are those who are already CSS wizards. BlankVerse ∅ 10:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that a page needs setting up for this, and have suggested it as part of the WP:TS push. violet/riga (t) 10:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the folks at WP:TS have been very pushy lately. Kasper Gutman 13:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

ed g2s went ahead and edited {{Routeboxca2}}, but that eliminated the example of a template that needed to be standarized. It would have helped if he had created before and after screen captures so we could see the differences and see what we are talking about for template standardization.

If people look at the diff for ed's edit, they will see that there was some extensive editing on the template—it isn't just a matter of sticking class="infobox" in the template. On the other hand, if you had looked at the before and after look for the template, you will see that all those changes made very little difference in the actual look of the template. Still, on this uncontroversial and un-edit-warred template, ed's edit upset one of the template's "guardians" who then did a flurry of edits after ed's edits (see the page's edit history).

BlankVerse, these comments are very misleading. My edit could've been a matter of just adding class="infobox", but there was a lot of badly written code in there (as a web-designer, I've written a lot of xhtml/css in my time), so if I'm going to update a template, I usually clean it up while I'm there. To say that I "upset" an editor by un-splitting the legend is a little bit of an exaggeration, and I have no problem with his revert. I do, however, have a problem with non-compliant code. ed g2s • talk 13:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

That response suggests that for many other templates, where there has been plenty of arguing, edit-warring, and careful compromises, that it will be best to move cautiously on implementing the infobox class. Before changing any infobox templates to the infobox class, the person doing the edit should look at both the template's Talk page and edit history. If there have been any disputes over the template, it is probably best to create the new version of the template first as a subpage of the old template, and then change a single page with the infobox template to the new version. The person doing the edits should then explain all of this on the template's Talk page, and point them to a page that explains the infobox class and the reasons for using it (Wikipedia:Infobox standardisation/documentation (or better yet Wikipedia:WikiProject Infobox/documentation) which would include the ed's explanations above on this talk page, some before and after screen captures, etc.).

Even if there have not been any problems with a particular infobox template, if implementing the infobox class is going to cause any obvious changes in size, shape, colors, etc. it is also probably a very good idea to proceed cautiously and follow the same steps that I've outlined above. For every template where the infobox class has been implemented, it is also probably a good idea to add a notice on the template's talk page (using a template?) saying that the infobox class has been implemented, and pointing to the documentation page (with NO mention of standardization, because that word is like waving a red flag). BlankVerse ∅ 21:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree a template pointing to an explanation page might be helpful. ed g2s • talk 13:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Field contents. eg domain suffix, or unit such as height or population.

Can we encourage people to pass just the raw data into the infobox template, eg region=nz instead of the cooked version region=nz, and raw height_m=8,850|height_ft=29,035, instead of cooked "8,850 m (29,035 ft)".

The logic is simply that the "cooked" can be created in a template, and hence is guaranteed display standard in the cooked format region=New Zealand. 8,850 m (29,035 ft) in all resulting output pages.

Even better still, maybe at some point in the future, the presentation of height and lengths can be set in the User: preferences. And if (for some reason god awful reason) the reader has their preferences to be on Nauticle Miles, then so be it, the numerical value is ready to be converted, from a nice standard format. No weeding of metacharacters like [] required.

I will happily create a bot to do this, once we get confortable the prefered formats, and proof of concept phase.

¢ NevilleDNZ 17:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC) ¢

[edit] VOTE!! - HDI in Infobox#Countries|country infobox/template?

The Human Development Index (HDI) is a standard UN measure/rank of how developed a country is or is not. It is a composite index based on GDP per capita (PPP), literacy, life expectancy, and school enrollment. However, as it is a composite index/rank, some may challenge its usefulness or applicability as information.

Thus, the following question is put to a vote:

Should any, some, or all of the following be included in the Wikipedia Infobox#Countries|country infobox/template:

(1) Human Development Index (HDI) for applicable countries, with year;

(2) Rank of country’s HDI;

(3) Category of country’s HDI (high, medium, or low)?

YES / NO / UNDECIDED/ABSTAIN - vote here

Thanks!

E Pluribus Anthony 01:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)