Wikipedia talk:List of infoboxes/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1 2004
2 2005

2004

Inserting comment before all introductory tables?

Original discussion imported from Wikipedia's Village Pump — moved to here by User:Fabiform.

This topic came up in the Infobox discussion, but I thought it warranted mentioning or discussing here:

For new wiki users trying to edit existing content, the table formatting is intimidating since it appears at the beginning of the entry and might scroll down a long way. ESPECIALLY so since we're now trying to use the wiki markup instead of HTML, so even experienced web users could easily be confused.

Should we suggest that, in all cases where there are tables, there should be a leading a comment (how do you do that in wiki--same as in HTML?) that says something like "This page starts with notation for the table displayed on the page. Scroll down to where the main article text begins"? Elf 04:25, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This all sounds sensible to me. And as for comments, there's one at the top of this page and it's the standard html, i.e. . fabiform | talk 07:49, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I like the way it's being done in WikiProject Countries: the opening paragraph precedes the table. If you think the wiki markup is too intimidating for wikipedians, maybe you want to use HTML. (See Wikipedia_talk:Infobox for a suggestion of a special namespace). -- User:Docu

The German wikipedia uses this concept for some time already, there an article which starts with a table is preceeded with

which translates to The actual article begins after the following HTML code for the basic facts table. If you don't want to edit the table just scroll down a bit. However I (and some others who discussed at the Infobox) would prefer to have something like the {{msg:something}} to incorporate tables into articles, e.g. with a {{table:Salamandra salamandra}}, which would contain the taxobox of the Fire Salamander. Then it would be much easier editable for the newbie - however as such infoboxes only belong to one article it would double the articles needed for such, and also spreads the information into two places. And last but not least would be work for our MediaWiki developers.

To put the table after the introductory paragraph does not look that much good in the displayed article, especially if the first paragraph is quite short. Then maybe there just one line of text above the infobox, which would looked better if the table is at top. andy 11:06, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

For the mean time, yes, editors should include a hidden comment stating that the following text is for the article's infobox. For example, in some of my edits I usually state at the top:

<!--ARTICLE'S INFOBOX -- SCROLL DOWN SEVERAL LINES FOR ARTICLE'S SUMMARY-->

Afterwards, at the end of the Infobox I state:

<!--//INFOBOX-->

<!--//END OF INFOBOX-->

Then, on the article's summary I state:

<!--ARTICLE'S SUMMARY-->

But I'm a slacker and sometimes I forget to do so. --Maio 21:15, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

Linking to Projects

Pardalotes

Scientific classification

Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Class:	Aves
Order:	Passeriformes
Family:	Pardalotidae
Genus:	Pardalotus

Species

P. punnctatus
P. quadragintus
P. rubricatus
P. striatus

WikiProjects:

Life, Birds

I also think it would be wise to have a link to the relavent Project(s) from (at the very least) the taxobox. Something like the taxobox the the right. - UtherSRG 18:51, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I know a lot of users don't like links from the article to the Wikipedia namespace, but it doesn't bother me terribly. I'd still rather see a mediawiki message on the top of the talk page that says something like:

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you are interested in editing this article, please remember to keep it in line with our Neutral Point-of-View policy. Suggestions for improving multiple articles on birds and related subjects should go to WikiProject Birds.

If somebody is really interested in editing an article and are unfamiliar with Wikipedia, it seems likely they would click on the "discuss this page" link and would be better served by having something more explicit than a barely noticeable link. Tuf-Kat 22:44, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

One wouldn't see the style guide for a hard copy encyclopedia, but WP isn't paper. I think it's a good thing for the non-editors to have a look under the hood. Let's them see the hows and whys of some articles. I like your prosaic message as well as my links. Often, info from the infobox is duplicated in the article text. I see no reason why there shouldn't be both the message and the taxobox line. Should your message go at the top of the article, or the bottom? Actually, I think it would be even better if such a notice came up, including links, when a user goes to edit an article. But discussions of such text (whether seen by readers or editors) is for another place, I believe. - UtherSRG 00:36, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm only suggesting putting the message on the talk page, such as to replace the stubbly ones e.g. at Talk:Alaska (Wondering how to edit this State Entry? The WikiProject U.S. States standards might help.). Tuf-Kat 01:14, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

Ah! Ok. I've now created {{msg:PrimateTalk}} and {{msg:BirdTalk}} for those two projects. I'm still of the mind, though, that it is a good thing to have some link to the Wikiproject page directly from the article. Even better would be for it to be on the WP sidebar. - UtherSRG 14:33, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I really like your links at the bottom of the taxobar, Uther. I wish every major table had annotation like that. (comparisons to a paper-cyclo's style guide or ongoing discussion is silly! they have a thousand editors to guarantee you never need to think about such things; we have no editors and want everyone who's interested to think about such things -- and shouldn't try to fool readers into thinking we are the *other* kind of encyclo. See Wikipedia:Peer review talk page for more...).

I disagree with linking to the Wikipedia namespace from articles. It makes the content less reusable as many of those who use our content do not have copies of the Wikipedia namespace. It's fine on the talk page, but Wikiprojects are not encyclopedic and should not be mentioned in the article itself. If you think the talk page won't get enough attention, you could mention the wikiproject inside HTML comment tags so that only those editing the article would see it. This would mean those just reading, and those using our content on other sites need not be affected by it. Angela . 12:40, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

I've already had this shotdown elsewhere. My true preference is not to have such links on the page, but to have them on the sidebar. IMNSHO, the sidebar should include special links related to the article: Is this a 'featured' article, is it under the auspices of a 'WikiProject', etc. - UtherSRG 12:48, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Discussion on meta on generic CSS classes

Some discussion arising on IRC has resulted in some discussion on the meta wiki which might lead to support for global CSS styles, see: Generic CSS classes for content. --Lexor|Talk 12:38, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Templates with named parameters in CVS

Please try out the development version running on test.wikipedia.org, which includes support for named parameters for templates, as has been discussed before. The syntax is: {{template name|param1=value1|param2=value2}}, where the text {{param1}} and {{param2}} is replaced with value1 and value2 in the template, which resides at [[Template:Template name]]. This makes it possible to use one template for each infobox and substitute the parameters on a per-page basis, which in turn makes it easy to update the infobox layout. This is all thanks to User:Tim Starling, who implemented both the original MediaWiki namespace, and the new template system based on it.

Tim's code also supports numbered parameters, where you can do {{template name|value1|value2|value3}}, and the variables {{1}}, {{2}}, {{3}} are replaced with the given values.

One problem in the implementation so far is that piped links as parameters (e.g. {{country|name=[[Germany|Federal Republic of Germany]]) are not possible, as the pipe character is also the parameter separator. I hope we can resolve this before the code goes live. Please report any other issues that you find.--Eloquence * 11:45, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

This will be an excellent new feature when it goes live. Kudos to Tim Starling. RedWolf 02:54, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

Color conflicts

Are people not paying attention to the reserved colors? I see several different projects using identical colors. RedWolf 02:57, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

I think it has already become difficult to find good colors (i.e. that text shows up well against, that aren't too distracting or garish, etc) and will obviously become much more difficult as the number of infoboxes multiplies. Thus, I doubt there is much support for continuing to try and keep colors separate. (I think this page doesn't reflect that, but it should) Colors for infoboxes that might otherwise be confused (for example, movies, novels and albums are all italicized and many people cross from one to another, such as singers making movies or actors writing novels); these should probably be distinct, if not in color then in format of the infobox itself. Tuf-Kat 04:11, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a limit on the number of colors a project can use? Elements has quite a few already. RedWolf 06:52, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

When this page was started & everyone assembled existing infoboxes, discussion came to the consensus that there was no such thing as a "reserved color" because there was already so much overlap and because it would be hard to pick truly unique colors when the few projects already existing were using so many colors. So it's nice to try to be unique but it's not likely to be possible and it was certainly not required. Elf | Talk 19:59, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Pictures and links

Is it possible to include resized pictures and/or wiki links in the infoboxes? I only get

[[Image:test_image.png

when I try to use

somefield=[[Image:test_image.png|80px|]]

in my test infobox. --Romanm 19:53, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It works now (see Ptuj). Thanks! --Romanm 15:57, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Infobox craze

Tables are fun to play with, and effective at conveying tables of data. But when a table takes over the screen in order to list a handful of facts that merely duplicate the opening sentence of the article, then that table is junk. In particular, a table is not required to give the title of a book, its author, and the date of publication. You can use a "sentence" to convey the same information in a smaller space, saving room to actually write the rest of the article. See [1] for a truly horrible example. Gdr 23:15, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)

Redundant infobox : Check.

Horrid pink box in the middle of the page to act as a "spoiler warning", despite book being a classic (We'll be putting them in Shakespeare next) Check.

I read the article on Macbeth before I was finished reading the play and it told me how Birnam Wood comes to Dunsinane. Just totally spoiled it for me. Now I'm reading the Bible and I'm not going to read any Wikipedia articles about the Bible until I get to the end and know how it turns out.

Categorized in an extremely small category. Check. (Though admittedly this category could and will be expanded).

The novel infobox is a product of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels, though several people there seem not to like it, but it has survived anyhow. The pink spoiler box is a product of Template:Spoiler, home of several pink box fans (though they can't explain why they like it). Pcb21| Pete 00:03, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Though I suspect you already know it, I'm compelled to point out that we already "thoughtfully" include spoiler warnings on much of Shakespeare (e.g. King Lear, Romeo and Juliet), and that we equally "thoughtfully" often provide the warning that "plot details are revealed" right after the heading "Plot". - Nunh-huh 05:08, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Heh, there are spoiler warnings for Richard III and Henry VI part I, but not for Richard II and Henry V. I guess we have a policy somewhere on interpreting how much Shakespeare had to make up before his histories deserve spoiler warnings. Pcb21| Pete 07:29, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Worse yet, we give away the fact that King Lear is a tragedy in the first sentence, well before our spoiler warning! Perhaps we need a rule that we must insert "spoiler space" before the body of each article that might contain information.... - Nunh-huh 21:19, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Stop marking texts with these silly boxes and templates. Does every article about a ruler of a territory need an enormous centered box at the bottom giving predecessor and successor. I agree that information is good to have. I'd be happier standardizing on always including that information as a final single-paragraph sentence. Jallan 00:35, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Does every article about a ruler... need a ... box at the bottom giving successor and predecessor? Yes. Yes it does. --Golbez 02:21, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rulers aren't really my bag, but I do like seeing succesor and predecessor on them when I somehow end up looking at one. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 02:35, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

I totally agree with having predecessor and successor information in such articles. I've added such information myself to some articles before these big box templates started turning up everywhere. No-one here has claimed that the information that appears in boxes and templates should not appear, but that boxes are overused and make the presentation of the material worse rather than better. For succession information, a short standard summary sentence in each article would would do as well, something like: "In #### YYYY succeeded XXXX to the throne of AAAAA, reigned for ## years, and in #### died/abdicated/vanished/was exiled and was succeeded by ZZZZ". Make it a standard that it is a separate paragraph to appear under the lead paragraph or the last sentence in the lead paragraph. Problem solved without need of a big, honking box that doesn't give as much information. And odd variations like intermediate exile during a reign or succession to more than one territory during a rule can be flexibly incorporated. Neither a box or a template is needed. Jallan 18:09, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree, I'm afraid. I like the boxes at the bottom giving the predecessors and successors in official posts. It avoids cluttering the article with the information. -- Necrothesp 21:41, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I sooooo loathe having those things interpolated into a novel. If Moll Flanders gets a table, it just makes it look fluffy, IMO. To me, all these graphical objects make serious works of literature look like infobytes that one finds plastered in USA Today and crawling along the bottom of CNN. They take away the seriousness. When I wrote (pretty much) Moll Flanders, I wove tiny incidents of the plot into a discussion of Defoe's career, interests, and genre. Then, -boing!-, a salmon colored Spoiler box was shoved incongruously in there. Ick. No, I didn't revert it or cut it out. I figured that someone thought he was making the article better, and I didn't want to offend, but I don't read for plot, and plot is the least important thing in 18th century novels. (Thanks guys, I feel better having gotten that off my chest.) Geogre 02:15, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The execrable "spoiler warning" is under discussion at Template talk:Spoiler. - Nunh-huh 02:33, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We should have these warnings on science articles too - it is horrible to find the results of an experiment plastered on a page here, it removes all of the joy and suspense of reading the paper. Likewise news, when I see the front page, the news for the day is ruined for me.

:). The economists don't need spoiler warnings on their articles though - they haven't got a clue what's going on. Pcb21| Pete 09:36, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I edited The Man Who Was Thursday into shape: compare before [2] and after [3]. Gdr 13:51, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)

An incredible amount of Wikitime is used in tinkering...and tinkering...and tinkering with the format of taxoboxes. I don't understand it, and I don't have a lot of time to spend on Wikipedia, so I generally ignore it. But I've often wondered if the time could have been better spent improving content.Pollinator 14:19, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

A yes, the mythical wiki-man-month. I think that most contributors are only contributing to something because they're legitimately interested in it. If someone is interested in taxoboxes or spoiler warnings and is going to improve it that's fine. I doubt that they would drop that interest and start researching dinosaurs or something random instead. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:48, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

Infoboxes are eeeevil... I hate it when inappropriate articles get them. They're concise, but ugly. Infoboxes are a necessary evil for articles about countries or leaders, though. But still...it drives me mad to see an inappropriate article getting such a table, or even worse, crowding it with data. Johnleemk | Talk 16:29, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just curious, how do you feel about the infobox at Lowe's Motor Speedway, et.al.? (the list of races may seem redundant but that's because few minor leagues race at Lowe's. I need to go back and work on that anyway. ) --Golbez 17:00, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Even if overused, infoboxes have their place. For example, music album articles benefit from them, as many audiophiles desire quick, organized access to such information. However I agree that some, if not most of them get clogged with excessive data, and this should be kept to a minimum. I also agree that most books have no need of an infobox, although their ISBNs should be given somewhere near the bottom of the article!

On the other hand, navigational templates (including the "predecessor/succesor" boxes) are almost always a good thing, as they make the encyclopedia easier to navigate for those perusing articles. Perhaps some of the negatve feeling against all boxes is that most of them are ugly. Many have those age-old, pseudo-3D html borders that everybody loves to hate. If a one pixel medium gray border were used everywhere instead, it would look much nicer. Given all the tools we are, we might as well use them to help make Wikipedia as easy to use as possible, even if it bends the traditions of former encyclopedias.[[User:Siroxo|—siro χ o

—siro χ o]] 22:18, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

Which is what I've been trying to say. Try to make things noticeable but subtle rather than big and ugly. Jallan 00:32, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There's some work being done on the succession info boxes in my sandbox and Adam Bishop's. Please have a look and comment. —Michael Z. 19:10, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)

Open source software infobox

I've created a template for open source programs: Template:Ossbox. See it in use on iRATE radio and comment on the template talk page, please.--Eloquence *

2005

Out of date

A number of these are out of date. They use thumbnail images, instead of auto-thumbnails, for instance, or the HTML-style <TD><TR> style tables, rather than the new {| ... |} tables. Someone ought to fix this. But, you know, who will bell the cat? Not me.

Infobox Width Blight & lack of policy thereon

There is no policy on infobox widths, but I note the policy on image widths [4] is In articles, if you wish to have a photo beside the text, you should generally use the "thumbnail" option available in the "Image markup", or approximately 200-250 pixels of width if you're doing it manually. I suggest that policy arises out a consideration that space should be left for the article. Many infoboxes I've seen are 300px wide, forcing text on an 800.600 display to 300 px wide ... often for no reason. Perhaps it is time that we started to develop policy for Infobox layout with respect to the rest of the page, and placed said policy in the Manual of Style. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Kingturtle added "If your infobox is aligned right, please consider having it no wider than 1/3 the width of the available page" in this edit. Now, I agree that wide infoboxes are a problem, but writing up a guide-line is this manner bothers me - the width of someones browser is a dynamic measurement, based mainly on their monitor or graphics card... xxx pixels wide? Thanks/wangi 13:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Are WikiProject Infoboxes Obsolete?

A certain Wikipedian has been following me around telling me constantly that WikiProjects are obsolete due to the implementation of categories. And, that Project Infoboxes are obsolete because of categories. Is this true? And, what specific policies, guidelines, and/or style guides say that either WikiProjects or their infoboxes are obsolete.

Opinions on why you personally Love/Hate Project Infoxes are a dime a dozen. What I am interested in are any and all policies, guidelines, and/or style guides that talk about project infoboxes. For example, when should a infobox NOT be used in an article?

I have noticed that Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, for example, ignores the topic of infoboxes. How come? -- John Gohde 15:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

An interesting representation of what I said. I, personally, very much like infoboxes when they don't duplicate categories. The country and music infoboxes are great examples. The CAM boxes are... well... not. Snowspinner 15:37, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

It is the well that I don't believe.

"A well-annotated list may duplicate a category, but not be redundant with it." [5]

I see no reason why an infobox may duplicate a category, but not be redundant with it would not likewise be true.

Your well strikes me as only a fickled personal preference.

-- John Gohde 15:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A) Lists do not take up screen space on other articles. Infoboxes do. B) Your infoboxes were not well annotated, which was a key descriptor in the original quote. A well-annotated infobox would be, say, what we have on Piano Man or Tunisia. That is, they provide information that cannot be contained in a category system. Yours did not do that. C) Even if the statement did carry over to infoboxes, and even if your boxes were well annotated (Two ifs that I am unable to grant), you at best have a claim that it may be possible that they are not redundant. On the other hand, it may still be redundant. Snowspinner 16:43, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I already know what your opinion is. I did not request a critique of a specific infobox by somebody who hates infoboxes in general. I asked for comments from our community. You do not speak for the community as far as I am concerned. And, as far as our specific infobox goes, our project requested comments from the community months ago. The time has past for comments on our specific infobox. Nor, did I request another round of your interpretation of policies, guidelines, and/or style guides which probably do not even exist. I asked: Show me the policies, guidelines, and/or style guides, please. -- John Gohde 04:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Snowspinner. I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of an alternative medicine infobox, but I agree that the current one is redundant with categories and not very useful. Tuf-Kat 22:02, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Infoboxes share absolutely nothing in common with categories. Absolutely nothing! See [6] -- John Gohde 06:29, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Exactly correct. Which is why I say your boxes aren't infoboxes. Snowspinner 13:25, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Exactly wrong. My link above stopped working since I had changed the headline description. It now works. I had moved the discussion to my talk page. -- John Gohde 19:58, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Infobox Changes

Currently, a design discussion is occuring at Template talk:Infobox pope. The discussion stems from a rv done to the pope infobox. While the first box was not made according to the toccolors stylesheet and other rules, there is a consensus that the design looks a lot nicer and more elegant than the current style. This got me wondering, why can't all infoboxes look as nice as the (old) pope infobox did? I thought that maybe, the style could be adapted to all infoboxes. What do you think? Bratsche^{talk random} 03:43, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Religious Leaders

Per the discussion on Template talk:Infobox pope I am proposing a Infobox standard for religious leaders that could be used by different denominations.

I would like to see different denominations each use a different color that is within the 256 standard palette for VGA. Preferably that do not duplicate those listed already but different enough to be clear about the denominations. Comments? Trödel|talk 20:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think that a separate box for religious leaders would be good, as the pope infobox is certainly elegant enough for that purpose. But in the Protestant churches alone, there are hundreds of denominations. Maybe each color should be for a general category: Catholicism, Protestant, Buddhism, etc. Bratsche^{talk random} 21:05, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Agree - it is an excellent idea to limit the colors for general categories and let the denomination line link to the specific portestant denomination. Trödel|talk 03:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agree - I will also help as soon as it is ready (leave me a note) --Astrowob 17:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If there are no objections - I will assist those at Template:Infobox pope in implementing the new Infobox. Also I have added proposed color scheme for different religions/denominations. Trödel|talk 16:21, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the new design is clean, simple, and looks great, I support it 100%. --Wgfinley 22:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New infoboxes should use the "toccolours" class. There is no reason why this one should be any different. ed g2s • talk 23:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it is super idea to have a distinct template for different religions (though I agree that because of the sheer number, a colour for each category might work better. Certainly the template being used is infinitely superior to the mediocre standard one. Once the religious template has been implemented, maybe we should redesign the standard template to produce something better than the dull mediocrity we are currently using. FearÉIREANN 01:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Um. If it is sheer mediocrity, then feel free to override it in your own monobook.css. You can make it look however you wish. There is no reason to force everyone to use that style, though - for example, I don't think the new style looks as good as class="toccolours". However, you can easily change what class="toccolours" does in your *own* monobook.css. Cheers, ugen 64 19:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand why there is such a strong objection to using the white background with only a left border on a float right table. Can someon help me understand the objection (other than it isn't a defined class in monobook.css - we could resolve that by adding a new class. Thx Trödel|talk 20:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The reason it isn't a defined class is that the monobook skin has a look with which this isn't consistent. ed g2s • talk 17:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are elements of the monobook skin that are have white backgrounds - so I am not sure what you mean by not consistent. Also, are you purposefully evading the question of what your objection is to white backgrounds on a table with only a left border. Trödel|talk 18:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ed's not interested in dialogue, only in convincing everyone that everything must be homogenous and conforming, and that there is no wiggle room for varying the style of the presentation to any degree, regardless on how the style clashes with the coloring of the presented information. There is nothing that mandates the use of toccolours, and by forcing it into the infoboxes he's stifling community involvement. Carry on in creating the infobox you feel you need to make and don't be inhibited by a non-existent style mandate that not everyone finds appealing. - UtherSRG 18:52, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Ed's tone may be annoying, but he does have a point. An encyclopaedia should give some appearance of homogeneity, and the proposed infobox is totally divergent from any other implementation, and should be deprecated. Noisy | Talk 22:26, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the encyclopedia should have an appearance of homogeneity. That is why I suggested on Mediawiki:monobook.css that we should have several classes that are aesthetically pleasing to use in the infoboxes. If you look at them - there are many proposed styles here and not at all consistent. The style above is already in use for identifying people. Extending it to religious leaders makes sense. And like some of the other infoboxes that use colored headers to identify classifications. This one des as well. Is there specific elements you object to - i.e. - infoboxes should have full borders, or tables should have lines or something that we could work on to compromise? Trödel|talk 00:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As Noisy said, the style on Infobox pope is complete inhomogeneous from the other implementations. Most of the implemetations listed on this page are old versions of old infoboxes. Most infoboxes aren't listed here at all. ed g2s • talk 01:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree with consistency. But there is consistency and their is ludicrous consistency. Wikipedia is an organic entity which changes with time. (It was brilliantly redesigned in the year I was away. I was extremely impressed in the way it looked when I saw it again.) I am totally opposed to the idea of each individual page being given a different look, with a wikipedian deciding "I want my page on Leonardo da Vinci to have a pink look"! But I think creating categories of infoboxes for different categories of article is excellent. I see no reason why a specific look cannot be created for pages dealing with religions, or dealing with prime ministers, or sportspeople, or the media, or science, or history. I think a clear look unique to a category would be an excellent idea, whether that uniqueness is defined by colour or set of graphics or whatever. I was heavily involved in the formal categorisation of monarchs' names and titles here a year ago - we had an unco-ordinated mess here up until then. The naming rules re monarchs are different to other people because they had to be for practical reasons. Wikipedia was able to facilitate that difference while keeping it as part of the whole entity. There is no reason why religious infoboxes cannot have a different look to infoboxes on chemistry or infoboxes on monarchs. It would give a visual unity to religious topics without taking away anything from wikipedia. And a particularly good design (like the one created for the popes) might inspire others to think of ways of improving less successful designs in other areas.

(removed personal attack). FearÉIREANN 00:54, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That last comment was completely unnecessary, and I found it personally very offensive. As it says on Wikipedia:Wikiquette: "Argue facts, not personalities.". I don't see why having all the infoboxes the same style is "ludicrous consistency", but no one has a problem with every image box in Wikipedia looking exactly the same. ed g2s • talk 01:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not for the first time you take offence at a gentle mocking of your repetition of the same argument and insistence that you speak for wikipedia even when most people are disagreeing with you. Try getting a sense of humour, Ed. Or is humour on wikipedia also inconsistent with your beloved "toccolours"? :p

In any other situation I would happily retaliate, but this sort of "banter" on Wikipedia is just bad Wikiquette, and the same point could've been made without trying to turn it into a mud-slinging fight, which serves only to increase hostility between users. Perhaps you should also read our policy on Civility. ed g2s • talk 11:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As to your claim that "no one has a problem with every image box in Wikipedia looking exactly the same" - oh really? Lets recap, then:

I would like to see different denominations each use a different color that is within the 256 standard palette - Trödel|talk 20:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think that a separate box for religious leaders would be good - Bratsche^{talk random} 21:05, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Agree - Astrowob 17:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think the new design is clean, simple, and looks great, I support it 100%. --Wgfinley 22:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think it is super idea to have a distinct template for different religions FearÉIREANN 01:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ed's not interested in dialogue, only in convincing everyone that everything must be homogenous and conforming, and that there is no wiggle room for varying the style of the presentation to any degree, regardless on how the style clashes with the coloring of the presented information. There is nothing that mandates the use of toccolours, and by forcing it into the infoboxes he's stifling community involvement. UtherSRG 18:52, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

So six people on this page, and others on other pages, have made it crystal clear that people do have a problem with every image on wikipedia looking exactly the same, and want to explore alternative looks. Please, Ed, listen to people. They are disagreeing with you loud and clear. FearÉIREANN 02:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the image boxes mentioned in any of those comments. I imagine if you start a design competition on a page with proper exposure - as was done for the thumbnailed image design competition, you would get quite a different response. ed g2s • talk 11:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mindboggling, Ed! What do you think they were talking about? The price of oil? The taste of cornflakes? Pope Benedict XVI? They were talking about changing from your beloved template to something different, as have other people elsewhere. Ed, you still haven't offered any credible argument against the proposed changes. You have spoken as if the current template is sacrosant and obligatory (it is neither), as if "toccolours" was a mandatory requirement and of such beauty Leonardo Da Vinci would bow before it (in reality it is not mandatory and as people have testified here it is in some skins absolutely hideous.) And you have said that no-one wants to change from having every image box the same on wikipedia, while users in reality have been screaming in unison here and elsewhere "yes we do".

Ultimately your argument boils down to what you wrotE earlier - 'New infoboxes should use the "toccolours" class. (answer: why?) There is no reason why this one should be any different. (Because people say they want it to. It isn't as if it some demonstratable fact like 2+2 = 4, or a rule of grammar, or some religious dogma. It is simply a colour. And if people decide that they want some infoboxes to have a backgroup of naked pink snails spinning on their heads, or (perish the thought) to be the colour of Pamela Anderson's hairdye, that is their right. Simply saying 'no, you can't' isn't good enough a response.) FearÉIREANN 19:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

James, don't be obsequious. The point is that this is one project with one look. If you don't like the look, change it - for the whole site. Uniformity of presentation is key. If you disagree with this, please do a review of the field of design, especially that of User Interfaces in information-rich areas such as, oh, gosh, an encyclopædia.

James F. (talk) 19:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree in the need for uniformity. But I think it actually makes sense, along with the use of categories and the use of templates to use the design to link certain themes. I don't see why using a distinct look for infoboxes in different categories of article runs against uniformity if done properly. I think the idea of using a distinct look for religions is perfectly sensible, just as I would like to see a distinctive look for science, for heads of state, for history infoboxes. That way, the moment you see a page the visual look tells you what category of topic you are dealing with. No-one is talking about a separate skin for each article, just a tweaked infobox. I would welcome, for example, a distinctive type of infobox that would tell me the moment I look at a page that the person it is about is a commonwealth governor-general, so pages on everyone from Domhnall Ua Buachalla in Ireland to Sir John Kerr in Australia is linked, as they all shared one key fact in common; they were all representatives of the King in their country. Ditto with religions. It would be a big help if the moment one entered a page on religion, one was visually told into what category the topic belonged: 'this is about Protestantism', 'this is about Roman Catholicism', 'this is about Islam'. The infoboxes need to share a couple of common features: shape, location on the page, size, overall structure. But within the overall guidelines there is scope for visual categorisation. It would also allow for people to develop visual ideas. Apart from Ed and one of two others, for example, most people are very happy with the pope template and it has given people ideas that would not have come from the rather mundane, dull standard infobox which already looks dated. Wikipedia is all about organic evolution, not rigid 'thou shalt not' orthodoxy. FearÉIREANN 01:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be very confused. They were talking about infoboxes, not image boxes. Just because users want to design their own infoboxes, doesn't mean we should let them. I imagine most users out there have their own preference to how image boxes should look, but we have an agreed style so we can maintain a consistent look.ed g2s • talk 19:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There you do with this "we" again, Ed. You act as though wikipedia is yours and you are the guardian of the truth. When we come to elect our first president, Ed, you may well be on our minds. But right now wikipedia is an organic community, and when people here and elsewhere queue to disagree with them, please do them the courtesy of accepting they have said an overwhelming 'no' to your beloved "toccolours". And using the phrase "doesn't mean we should let them" is deeply discourteous to everyone else, as if to say that you are the guardian of wikipedia and they have to do things your way, or else. FearÉIREANN 01:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Possible bug somewhere on page

Is it just me or did something happen in one of the edits on March 29, 2005, to make a large (several screens tall) vertical dark-gray bar appear in the top right corner of this page (that is, Wikipedia:Infobox)? I see it on the current version and every version I've checked (sporadic checks) back to 17:56, 29 March 2005 (diff), but not on 10:15, 29 March 2005 (diff) and earlier versions. Strangely, I see it on the last diff linked to in the previous sentence, but not on the version of the page which resulted from that edit (the 10:15, 29 March 2005 link)! I don't see it on the previous diff or any earlier ones. So, something must have happened in the edit at 10:15 or 17:56 on March 29th, but I'll be damned if I can figure out what it was! I'm using Firefox 1.0 on Windows 95 [or, to be exact: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win95; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041107 Firefox/1.0]... oh, and I'm in the U.S. Central time zone in case the times I give don't match what you see. - dcljr (talk) 05:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Yep, it is probably just you: I have MSIE6 on WinXP, and there's nothing wrong. And using Firefox on Linux all infoboxes come out even better. Most likely, the combination of FF on Win95 is problematic. Recommendation: upgrade your OS. Wim van Dorst 19:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC).
- I think that goes without saying... - dcljr (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Well, for the record I have actually "upgrade[d my] OS" to Linux (not because of this problem, of course, I was planning on doing so anyway) and I now see none of the problems previously mentioned [using Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.10) Gecko/20050824 Firefox/1.0.6]. Still, it would have been nice to know what the problem was exactly... - dcljr (talk) 07:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Standardization

There is a new proposal concerning infoboxes: Wikipedia:No infobox standardization. You are invited to comment.--Fenice 18:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

VOTE!! - HDI in 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 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)

"All This Useless Color"

I am surprised that I can't find a big discussion about why so many Infoboxes use color to "differentiate" themselves. Maybe I'm stirring a long-quiet pot, or one that hasn't yet been stirred, but I have to call for a change here.

Readers just cannot remember more than a few colors in any context, so it's useless to use a huge list of colors for any reason.
Computer screens vary so much in tint and luminosity, no coding system can use colors that are similar to each other.
Worst of all, the current system reduces any ability to use color as a meaningful signal in the broader Wikimedia interface.

I am not a policy-maker; I do believe good design is self-propogating, and I am interested in hearing—if there are those who agree with me—about how we can make a case for reducing wanton overuse of color in Infoboxes.
—Papayoung ☯ 05:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Categories: Wikipedia talk archives