Wikipedia talk:List of infoboxes/Archive 1

message: Recently, someone mentioned a corporations table on the village pump.  Anyone know if something ever came of this?
I don't like whatever it is the rockets template does.  It makes it more difficult to edit and doesn't really add anything.  Before I take it to the wikiproject page, does anybody here agree with me?  Also, what does everybody think about US states using basically the same template as countries -- I rather think they should use the same kind of light green template as other subdivisions.  We did, IIRC, require that micronations and fictional countries not use the country template to avoid confusion, and that should apply here I think. Tuf-Kat 05:47, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)
:What don't you like about the Rocket template?  I'll admit the html is complicated, but it makes for a nicely formatted table.  There is a version of it in the new wiki table format at User:Audin which seems less complicated.  (note I am biased, as I came up with the table in question originally) Audin 20:23, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ragged left (right-aligned) is harder to scan visually, and overlapping cells can be unclear. I think separating out the 3 stages like you did is a good idea. Since I've been experimenting with new table markup, I couldn't resist mucking a bit and stuck some on your user talk page. :-) Enjoy, I hope.  Elf 21:36, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Assorted table chit chat

message: Is this the place to suggest that rocks & minerals should have standard tables like those currently used for, for example, birds and dogs (e.g., Whippet)? I've got a sample of a rock and a mineral on my user page.Elf 20:19, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There would be too much overlap with compounds. So just use the compounds table with a few extra cells. See carbon dioxide. Develop that a bit and then start a WikiProject. At that point try to gain support and comments on your table. If and when others think it is a good idea, then start implementing it. --mav 00:21, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Just one suggestion: When choosing the colour, you might want to stay away from red because it is being used by the animal articles (see platypus or grouse), stay away from yellow because it is being used by the chemical compounds articles (see calcium carbonate) or carbon dioxide, and stay away from green because it is being used by the plant articles (see ginkgo). mydogategodshat 00:45, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And it looks like the music albums project is going to use gold. mydogategodshat 09:23, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Colors--Finding an unused color is going to become challenging as more topics are tableized, especially if each group subdivides the way the chemical elements project is doing, using pretty much all the colors for different categories. Elf 17:36, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this matter? Surely other projects will have tables of different shapes, sizes, positions, fonts, cell joins, photos and diagrams in different places and so on. Colour is only one of many eye-catchers, and probably the right one to use at a fairly fine level of detail ie within a project, as at this level the other features of the table, many of which are data-driven in a way that colour isn't, may be best left uniform. Andrewa 09:44, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggesting standard table for rocks/minerals 

message: ::Colors--Finding an unused color is going to become challenging as more topics are tableized, especially if each group subdivides the way the chemical elements project is doing, using pretty much all the colors for different categories. Elf 17:36, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this matter? Surely other projects will have tables of different shapes, sizes, positions, fonts, cell joins, photos and diagrams in different places and so on. Colour is only one of many eye-catchers, and probably the right one to use at a fairly fine level of detail ie within a project, as at this level the other features of the table, many of which are data-driven in a way that colour isn't, may be best left uniform. Andrewa 09:44, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Colors for standard tables

message: I have created a table template for albums.  Two examples can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums.  Your comments are welcome.  Somebody who knows how to use the table syntax should make it look better. -- [Presumably Tuf-Kat]
: I've improved this a bit, but there are two stray incidents of "</table>" that I can't see where they come from. It's midnight, I'm going to bed, can someone else with HTML and wiki markup knowledge please take a look? -- Jmabel 08:09, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. The </table> tags were fine, it was the missing </small> tags (and possibly also the missing </td> tags) that were throwing it off. —Paul A 09:07, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Album template and table help needed

message: Just to raise awareness over here, Wikipedia:Companies, Corporations and Economic Information is preparing a standard table template. So if you are doling out colors for tables, you're going to have to reserve one for companies. →Raul654 08:06, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)
:I've gone ahead and placed the template (using wikimarkup) under proposed. Should probably be replaced by a real example (i.e. with factual info, like the other examples here) once one is made. Tuf-Kat
To prevent the meta page becoming too bloated, could I suggest not including boxes that are well established and which have examples on their project page?  Just include a section heading plus a link to the project page and perhaps a link to a sample entry using the box.  We shouldn't have multiple sources of box templates otherwise they'll get out of sync if people tweak the markup. Geoff 10:39, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ohhhhh noooo, I know it's a long page with all those examples, but it's been so NICE to have all those examples in one place to look at and compare and contrast without having to bounce back and forth from the metapage to the individual pages more than a dozen times (especially since each so often takes so long to load when servers are groaning).  I agree that having multiple sources is a risky bit--too bad there's no way to include a sample-by-reference (like {include:infobox:compounds}).   Elf 19:28, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding new boxes 

message: * Infobox
** Tannin (#1 choice)
** Lexor (#1 choice)
** UtherSRG (#1)
** sannse
** Baldhur (#1)
** Elf (easier to say than Factbox, but that's not a bad choice, either)
** mav (#2 choice)
** Tuf-Kat
** Dori
** Michael Snow
* Factbox
** Tannin (not bad)
** Lexor (#2 choice)
** UtherSRG (#2)
** Baldhur (good alternative)
** mav (#1 choice)
** Angela
* Stay with taxobox
* Other (write it in)
===Tally by Lexor 01:37, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Infoboxes of taxonomy info will always be taxoboxes (or taxotables). Infoboxes of other info may, or may not, acquire a nickname. (Rockoboxes? Dogoboxes? Corpoboxes?) - UtherSRG 14:21, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll: new name

message: So can we declare the poll over and move the page to Wikipedia:Infobox?   Looks like infobox wins the day. --Lexor 21:47, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Tally by [[User:Lexor|Lexor]] 01:37, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

message: BTW, I'll keep calling the ones I mostly use "taxoboxes", but that's only because I mostly work on the biology stuff where they are "taxo" boxes. Either infobox or factbox is good. Tannin 12:18, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Infoboxes of taxonomy info will always be taxoboxes (or taxotables). Infoboxes of other info may, or may not, acquire a nickname. (Rockoboxes? Dogoboxes? Corpoboxes?) - UtherSRG 14:21, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion