Wikipedia talk:Infobox standardisation/Archive 1

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Infobox class 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Captions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Colours 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Other standards 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Fenice, can you give an example? -Harmil 12:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vertical subheadings

message: All boxes should use #efefef as a background color.--Fenice 12:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Color of box

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

message: 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 . 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:
::#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)
::#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.
::#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)
thread_title:  Will this work? 

message: 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  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)
thread_title:  Not here, not now, not this way 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Each project its own 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A minimal, simple proposal 

message: 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)
thread_title: We have many good reasons for standarizing infoboxes.

message: 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)
thread_title:  Field contents. eg domain suffix, or unit such as height or population. 

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