Wikipedia talk:List of infoboxes/Proposed/Infobox window covering

message: Is this to be termed "Infobox Mini blind" or was "Mini blind" just an example of its use (in which case what name should the infobox have) ? David Ruben  Talk  01:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking it should be called Window Covering with Mini Blind as an example. I don’t know what the angle brackets are for. I want it to show the example, so I guess I should edit it. --Chuck Marean 02:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given generally only 1st word capitalise, then template would be Template:Infobox window covering David Ruben  Talk  00:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox name

message: There seems little need for a taxonomic info-box for mini blinds. These are window coverings, not drosophila. --ZimZalaBim talk 02:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some Window Coverings are drapery, etc. --Chuck Marean 02:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Infoboxes should have one fixed colour scheme for consistency across a group of articles. The only occasion an exception thought appropriate, was for sports teams to follow the club's colours.David Ruben  Talk  11:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Help:Infobox said, "You can use . . . a system of coloration (for example, the organism taxobox has different colors for each of the kingdoms)."--Chuck Marean 19:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, and I missed that sentance trying to look up guidelines for this. But note the importance of there being a "system" of colours - that means preset and defined set of colours. So internal and external window coverings might have a different colour, but not a free range for each article to have a idiosyncratically chosen colour by that article's editor. There should be a described list of colours to be selected from in the infobox's description (ie in the /doc), or the colour to be set on the basis of one of the given parameter values (either "purpose" or "location" values) ? David Ruben  Talk  22:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Colours

message: Sorry, but this merely looks like a fancy framing for an image & caption, and not an actual Infobox (which is supposed to provide a "consistently-formatted table which is present in articles with a common subject to provide summary information consistently between articles or improve navigation to closely related articles in that subject").  --ZimZalaBim talk 16:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This hasn't been addressed, so I've nominated it for deletion here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed/Infobox window covering. --ZimZalaBim talk 14:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. This “fancy framing for an image & caption” is an an actual Infobox. It does provide a "consistently-formatted table which is present in articles with a common subject to provide summary information consistently between articles or improve navigation to closely related articles in that subject." It provides name, image and caption. That is summary information. It’s consistently-formatted. It’s a table. It’s for articles with a common subject, window coverings. The way it provides the information is consistent between articles: name of object, view of object, and capiton about object. Also, an infobox is not called a tablebox. Yet, this is not only a table, it’s two tables. The “name of object” parameter goes in a table within the main table, and it does provide info. Chuck Marean 00:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fancy image, not an infobox