Template talk:Infobox file format

message: I think it's worth adding some field to handle a description for the icon, or support for multiple icons. There are a decent amount of popular formats that are cross-platform and cross-application, and don't have a single icon standard. Ndavidow (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Icon Description

message: (1) It uses inappropriate vocabulary.  (Have you ever heard people talk about file format "maintainers"?  Or file format "genres"?  No, because nobody uses these words to describe file formats.)  (2) It is only used by one editor.  (3) It has Macintosh bias (OSType). This is template abuse.  Some editors on wikipedia are far too obsessed with infoboxes.  – Andyluciano 23:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your complaints, but do you have any suggestions to make this better? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For (3), I replaced "OSType" (which, as noted, is completely wrong) with "OS type". Guy Harris 18:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it should be creator code. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 21:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, creator code, along with type code, are the classic Mac OS equivalents of file extensions; I fixed the "creator code" stuff not to refer to "ostype" ("ostype" isn't set to a type or creator code in many of the infoboxes, it's set to the type of OS), and added in type code as "typecode" for completeness.  I'll fix up the infoboxes into which I added "ostype" stuff (by removing the "ostype" entry) and any other boxes with "ostype". Guy Harris 23:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Damnit, I got it backwards. Sorry. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It certainly needs more documentation, what are the various fields used for etc. Otherwise it's unlike many monstrous infoboxes decent and informative, if you just leave more obscure parameters empty. -- Omniplex 18:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This template is questionable. 

message: Caption uses "font-size: smaller;". The caption looks good on IE but is barely readable on Opera. Font-size can be increased. Jay 18:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Caption not readable

message: I think it's better for the readers to find out what the template looks like with the example rather than the actual template because nearly all parameters are optional, so you don't see so much of it. 16@r (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  includeonly 

message: In some cases the creation, distribution, or decryption/translation/usage of certain file formats can violate copyright and patent laws in some countries.  Given this, I think it's important to include a license and/or patent line so that it can be more clear what distribution, creation/encoding, and reading/decryption is legally allowed in some countries.  For example, Ogg Vorbis doesn't state in it's infobox that it's clearly open source and not under threats from patent issues, and the H264 codec doesn't have any infobox at all.  If this were clarified and these infoboxes were used more, it could be made clear that one is completely free to use, and the other isn't, after the H264 infobox is added.  Just trying to make the template more useful. :) Yfrwlf (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The "owner" line is not enough. --Nemo 18:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Licensing 

message: Shouldn't version be added to the infobox, it is very an important aspect. --75.154.186.241 (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Versions 

message: Shouldn't the "free" parameter say something like "Format type:" with three options: Open, closed, free? You can have an open format and not be free, so it's a lot more informative than yes/no. -- Ned Scott 04:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  free 

message: :;owner
::The owner of the format.
is unclear. Many file formats are developed by engineer(s) at some company, adopted and promoted by some industry consortium, then endorsed/published/standardized by some standards body. Who is now the "owner"?  E.g. for QCP, it was developed by Qualcomm but is now an IANA mime type with an IETF RFC documenting the format; so who is the owner? If it's now IANA, then it seems this infobox need a 'developed by' field. Skierpage (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha ha, I didn't realize the parameter "owner" is displayed as "Developed by"! It's really confusing to have a template whose parameters display as different words!  Please change parameter "owner" to "developed by", likewise change parameter "url" to "website". I'm sure some Wikipedia expert knows how to run a bot to update existing templates. -- Skierpage (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "owner" unclear; distinct from "developed by"? 

message: : Ha ha, I didn't realize the parameter "owner" is displayed as "Developed by"! It's really confusing to have a template whose parameters display as different words!  Please change parameter "owner" to "developed by", likewise change parameter "url" to "website". I'm sure some Wikipedia expert knows how to run a bot to update existing templates. -- Skierpage (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  In other words, parameters should match displayed text! 

message: What about a "preview version release" and "preview version date"? -79.181.99.85 (talk) 11:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preview version 

message: Saying "released" for a future release date is so wrong!  Can we add a "release, or"release date" for future events?  Thanks 98.203.247.11 (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add "release date" or even "release" for future event. 

message: I wasn't aware of UTIs (just noticed at JPEG): Uniform Type Identifier#UTI structure "Apple maintains the public.* domain as a set base data types for all UTIs."
Should say magic values, that are inherent in file formats be above? [Are those, also sometimes, used for Apple's OSes? Do others use their UTIs?] comp.arch (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proprietary field before general? 

message: "Conformance" is the wording Apple uses (I think "conformation" isn't quite the right word). Wevah (talk) 15:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should "UTI conformation" (conforms_to) be "UTI conformance"? 

message: It appears that the template somehow autogenerates the value of MIME type field (field 'mime'). In particular, at ICO (file format) I have discovered that it for some reason autogenerates value image/vnd.microsoft.icon for CUR and ICO file type. How and why is this done? In addition, the value is incorrect; the MIME type image/vnd.microsoft.icon was registered by a third party and is not recognized by Microsoft software (icons should be served as image/x-icon instead). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The page's Wikidata is consulted if the infobox's Internet media type field hasn't been specified; specifically, its media type property. See Q729366 for the Wikidata of the ICO file format. — Alhadis (talk) 06:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Autogenerated value of MIME type?

message: [W3C's https://w3c.github.io/mathml-docs/mathml-media-types/#media-types-mathml MathML specification] specifies a "Windows Clipboard Name" field alongside the usual details expected to be found in a formal file format specification (Media Type, , filename extensions, etc). This is ostensibly important enough to include in this Infobox template, but my understanding of Windows's clipboard internals is… dim, to say the least. From a cursory reading of Microsoft's Clipboard Formats docs, it's unclear if "clipboard names" are as well-established a concept on Windows as, say, MIME types or Type codes. Can anybody more familiar with Windows weigh in on this? (It'll also warrant creating a new Wikidata property too, FWIW). — Alhadis (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of "Windows Clipboard flavour" field