Wikipedia talk:List of infoboxes/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title:  Discussion on meta on generic CSS classes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Color conflicts 

message: 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=
in my test infobox. --Romanm 19:53, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures and links 

message: There is no policy on infobox widths, but I note the policy on image widths  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)
thread_title: Infobox Width Blight & lack of policy thereon

message: 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)
thread_title:  Possible bug somewhere on page 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  '''[[Template_talk:Infobox_Country#VOTE.21.21_-_HDI_in_country_infobox.2Ftemplate.3F|VOTE!!]]''' - HDI in [[Wikipedia:List of infoboxes#Countries|country infobox]]/template? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "All This Useless Color" 

message: Can I request an infobox for Society > Organisations > Professional Body (or professional organisation)? There are many of these and many have a lot of information, so it looks a lot cleaner if we can have an infobox. See List of professional organizations and List of British professional bodies. Can anyone help? -- S Masters 16:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Organisations infobox 

message: Is it just me, or is every picture in every infobox on wikipedia vertically compressed when compared to the original?  Has this ever been brought up before, or has it just been overlooked?  The strokes 20:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures in infoboxes 

message: Since this is even remarked as being out of date, shouldn't the WP:IB shortcut go to this one instead?  --TheTruthiness 08:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortcut 

message: I'm looking for folks to help with what I fear is a widespread infobox accessbility issue.  Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Infobox accessibility. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox accessibility issue 

message: I have an idea for a new Infobox, the idea is to have one for charities and non-profit companies.
pjb007 13:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox for Charities 

message: Can this also be used for colleges.
pjb007 16:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox for Universities 

message: This page is far too large, it is almost
impossible to load it over a V.90 modem line.
Omniplex 08:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rant about black on black effect moved to Infobox TLD. Omniplex 04:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Rant about erroneous  removed, see Template talk:-#Fixed_bugs, I patch old template expansions here manually. Omniplex 16:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed split 

message: Per Wikipedia fair use policy, fair use images should not be used outside the article namespace. I've converted the fair use images to links (I may have missed some). Feel free to revert if this edit was in error. --Muchness 23:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use

message: I've been having a look at some of the football stadium articles on Wikipedia, and I've noticed that many of the articles don't have stadium infoboxes. So, I thought I'd do something about it. However, it seems there isn't much consistency regarding the use of infoboxes in the articles that already have them. Examples:
Santiago Bernabéu uses one type;
San Siro uses another;
St James' Park has another;
Camp Nou has yet another.
Is it really necessary to have all these different infoboxes? I think it would look much better if they all used the same one, but I'm not really sure which would be the best. Any thoughts on this? --Léman 22:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stadium Infoboxes 

message: Please, I need something saying that the infobox on California State Route 1 is too big. The WikiProject guys aren't listening to common sense. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems just right for me. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too big

message: made the template  to assist. →AzaToth 20:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work, but I'm pretty sure that most (if not all) of that particular color scheme has been abandoned by now. —Kirill Lokshin 20:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  colors 

message: Most infoboxes use the infobox css class. Most infoboxes use a smaller font. So why isn't this smaller font part of the class definition? Why does this have to be specified through a style attribute again and again?
This has the potential to make infoboxes look less uniform (geo infoboxes use 90%, others use 84%) and it makes it more difficult to change the appearance of infoboxes through user css (skinning). If we were to move this over to common.css, all this would be solved. Shinobu 21:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox font-size 

message: I notice there is a meteoric rise in the use of frivolous infoboxes (eg "this user likes cabbage"). I don't see why such infoboxes have any place whatsoever in a serious encyclopedic effort. I know they appear in user namespace rather than main wikipedia namespace but even so, I feel they are one of several factors leading to wikipedia being dragged into a "myspace.com" effort and away from serious scholarly effort. I'm not a killjoy, but all the effort put into finding daft userboxes could really be better spent elsewhere. Is there any possible reason for keeping frivolous user infoboxes? I propose an immediate policy of banning all such new creations and timescale for removal of existing ones. - PocklingtonDan 19:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a discussion that is better suited to Wikipedia talk:Userboxes.  The archives of that page have previous discussions about such proposals. Slambo (Speak) 20:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The "energies could be better used" argument is a bit flawed, in my estimation. I've got 99 userboxes, but at the same time, I've got 12,407 edits (4,857 of those being mainspace). Having userboxes does not equate to not improving the encyclopedia. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but that would be 12,408 if you hadn't stopped to let everyone know you were a "gray reef shark". Now times that by the number of registered wikipedia contributors. Plus, as I say, wikipedia is supposed to be a serious encycolpedia, why would I want to know one of its authors likes jam sandwiches or gray reef sharks? I will duplicate this discussion in the userbox page linked to. Please make no more reponses on this page - PocklingtonDan 21:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because editors who profess an interest in specific fields tend to know more about those fields and have references, images and other materials related to those fields.  For example, on my own user page, I have a userbox that says I'm interested in trains ("This user is a railfan"); in my basement I've got about 20 years of magazines related to worldwide rail transport subjects and a large number of books and videos that I reference regularly while creating and working on articles here. Slambo (Speak) 21:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we ban all frivolous user infoboxes? 

message: Do I add these on the skin's main.css file or there's a way to add it within MW?  If it is manually added (as it seems), what is Wikipedia's setting for class="infobox" and class="infobox border"  ??
Thanks.
--- Laibcoms (talk | Contribs) 08:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  class="infobox" and class="infobox border" 

message: The Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed is totally unweldy at 76kb long and making editing a slow business. Also any history or discussion during the development process is not transfered across to an infobox when it is enacted for real.
Can I suggest that just as WP:AfD does not include each proposal but splits according to days (eg see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 9), so each infobox proposed is created in a subpage. This is also similar to the WP:RfA process where each nomination is separate page that eventually is moved from active to past proposals simply by removing the link on the main RFA page. 
A subpage per infobox proposal would allow edits to an infobox needing just to load the one proposal (rather than waiting for a very long page to load), and both the page and its discussion can at the end of the process be moved to the live thing preserving all of the development history & discussion. This would also ensure that infoboxes that are enacted automatically get removed from the proposed list.David Ruben  Talk  02:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As example see how adding sub-page link adds new proposal to the list (change to the List of infoboxes/Proposed) adding just  to provide the display and links to Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed/Infobox Abortion, along with fact that we can have a usage explanation page Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed/Infobox Abortion/doc, and a discussion of its development at Wikipedia talk:List of infoboxes/Proposed/Infobox Abortion.  David Ruben  Talk  03:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion to split proposed infoboxes

message: I'm currently working on the article on Rudolph Cartier, and wanted to add an infobox to it. While I wasn't completely surprised to find we didn't have an Infobox:Television director, I was pretty amazed we don't have a general Infobox:Director, or even an Infobox:Film director which I could adapt for Cartier. Am I missing something, or do we not have a director infobox? I've had a look at a couple of director articles, and those that have infoboxes seem to use adapted Infobox:Actor templates, which can't be the best solution, surely? Is there a proposal to create an Infobox:Director anywhere? Angmering 13:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone...? Angmering 18:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox:director?

message: Is there a template for use on talk pages to request the addition of an infobox to an article (i.e. an equivalent to ?) --Aarktica 19:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox request template. 

message: Could we have one? Funkynusayri 14:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mythological creatures infoboxes 

message: There doesn't seem to be any Infobox format for scientific or professional organizations, such as the International Association for Plant Taxonomy, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.  Could an appropriate box format be generated? --EncycloPetey 14:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professional associations and organizations 

message: I have created Template:Infobox franchise. Is this infobox okay to stay or not?. Mythdon (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Infobox franchise|Infobox franchise]] 

message: The various lists here are woefully out-of-date, and seem to have been pretty much replaced by categories. Is there still a need for these list pages, or should we delete this and move the relevant conversations to Category talk:Infobox templates? --Elonka 16:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I've started a merge proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes#Lists of infoboxes. Still thinking through options. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Out-of-date lists

message: Per #Out-of-date lists above, and the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes#Lists of infoboxes, I've merged/redirected this set of pages to the Category system. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged