Wikipedia talk:Infobox templates

Recommendations

The width of an infobox should be specified in em's not px, as this is relative to font-size. ed g2s • talk 11:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

That's a bad idea. We're talking about a box itself, not text. px are needed for absolute positioning. -- Netoholic @ 16:19, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

Could you give an example where absolute positioning is needed or used? Em measurements may improve readability in some cases. In others they can make it worse or destroy a layout. I'm not sure what would happed here. Wipe 22:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

What are you on about? I've specified loads of boxes in em's. What exactly needs to be positioned absolutely? The infobox itself is floated right. ed g2s • talk 00:26, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, well, thanks for not bothering to wait for a reply or more comments before you went and implemented your suggestion on all the infoboxes. Why did you even bother posting on this talk page if you were set on doing this anyway.

Anyway, px is the only reliable absolute unit on screen. Using em, sometimes browsers use the wrong reference size. Using em might also break things if multiple infoboxes are meant to line up (see the section on secondary infoboxes on the main page). The best practice is to use px for "structural" elements like the outer box size, borders, etc. Leave em for strictly text styling. Appropriate use of both is what we need. Remember also that many infoboxs use images, which are going to be specified in px. -- Netoholic @ 03:11, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

I've always implemented em's, way before suggesting it as a recommendation here. In the cases px's are absolutely necessary (show me an example) they can be used. But most of the simple infoboxes work fine with em's. If defined as the main table width, the em will always be relative to the normal font size, nested width's can then be defined as percentages. Using px's makes the boxes very ugly for anyone who doesn't use the default browser font size. ed g2s • talk 10:14, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Backlinks

The backlinks now show all the pages with the infobox.

Outdated discussion on limitation of number of backlinks

However, the maximum number shown is 999; therefore, for infoboxes used on more than 999 pages an automatically generated list that is complete is not available, unless there is a category. Alternatively there might be a non-automatic list.

Infoboxes used on more than 999 pages include:

• Template:Infobox VG (talk links edit) - see also Category:Computer and video games
• Template:Infobox_Film (talk links edit) - see also Category:Films

As a workaround, the set of pages with an infobox can be divided in subsets of not more than 999, each calling a redirect to the infobox; the backlinks of the redirects are together the pages that use the infobox; one has to record the names of the redirects, because they are also part of the large set of backlinks of the infobox, of which only 500 are shown.

Redirects allowing 999 backlinks each:

• Template:Infobox VG1 (talk links edit)
• Template:Infobox CVG2 (talk links edit)

Alternatively, CVG could redirect to CVG1, and the content put there, then on 999 pages less the template tag would have to be changed (from CVG to CVG2, etc.).

The same can be done for infoboxes when the number of pages reaches 999, then the backlinks are and stay complete without cumbersome changes in tags.

For example, for Template:Infobox City (talk links edit), when there are almost 999 cities, the template can be renamed, so that the existing tags refer to a redirect. A second redirect to the new name can be used for new occurrences of the infobox.

Patrick 08:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I changed 500 to 999, and Template:Tic, after reading the message below.--Patrick 10:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's a really ugly hack for a very minor problem with the MediaWiki software. The backlinks page does accept &limit=999 in the URL if you want to see more that 500 backlinks, and probably &offset=999. ed g2s • talk 15:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Interesting that 999 are possible. However, offset does not seem to work. I think it is a basic limitation if you cannot get a list of all pages that use a template.--Patrick 10:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Standardization

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

VOTE!! - HDI in Infobox#Countries|country infobox/template?

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)

Infobox with Template:Infobox Country within another template

Should we use Template:Infobox Country on Austria or on Template:Infobox Austria. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Country_Specific_Infoxboxes_that_only_redirect_to_Template:Infobox_Country. -- User:Docu

Template "lists of films"

Hi! I couldn't find this template here. I would like to know if anyone knows how to add one more genre in this template. It's missing drama films...

fizzerbear 23:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Stacking and aligning multiple template boxes

Editors of Saint Louis, Missouri would like to use Template:Quotebox to place directly under Template:Infobox City, and I've tried several ways to accomplish this, to no avail. How is it done (if it is possible)? Alternatively, it could be placed inside city infobox, but I'm not sure that is possible or desirable, or how to do it, if it is. Evolauxia 09:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

you want to add "clear:right;" in the styling of the box. I did it. It will automatically be pushed under any preceding floated box(es). Circeus 15:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

there's a problem with that solution... if the second box's containing section is short enough, the second box will overlay the "Edit" link of next section --Millbrooky 07:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Instructions

Is there a standard form of usage instructions for infoboxes? Also, is there a stardard that says the instructions should be placed on the talk page. The reason I'm asking is because I think that the best place to put instructions would be on the infobox's main page (inside a pair of noinclude tags, of course). This way when a user goes to the infobox page they don't just see a mess of code or a box with a bunch of inclusion tags in it. A novice may not even realize the instuctions are on the talk page until they go there to ask how to use it. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 23:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for common look and feel for geographical infoboxes

I've created page for discussion about creating a standard look and feel for geographical infoboxes, please contribute at Wikipedia:Geographical infoboxes if you're interested. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Notice of Move discussion

There is a discussion going on at Template talk:Infobox President about moving Template:Infobox President to Template:Infobox Officeholder. Hera1187 09:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit infobox as section

As everyone knows, each section in a wikipedia article has an Edit link which gives a user the opportunity to edit only that section. Is there a way to include an edit link in an infobox which would give the user the opportunity to edit the template call as a section? (I.e., not a link to edit the template itself, but to the infobox within the current article.) I hope this is clear. The Infobox I'm talking about is Template:Infobox baseball team. Thanks in advance. Rolando (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The infobox content is usually at the very beginning of the article, i.e. section 0, so I think the following does what you're looking for:

<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:{{PAGENAMEE}}|action=edit&section=0}} edit]</span>

This produces an edit link for all of section 0 (i.e. everything before the first heading), not just the template invocation. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

unwanted interaction between infoboxes.

Hello - I was wondering if I could get some technical help regarding the interactions of two info boxes. I have been developing the template:mycomorphbox infobox as a way to quickly display identifying characteristics of mushrooms on mushroom pages. These pages tend to also have template:taxobox infoboxes. When the two appear together, the "edit" links in each sub-section of the articles get pushed down to the top of the lower infobox, generally the mycomorphbox. I would like to resolve this. Oyster mushroom is an example.

I believe it has something to do with the "edit" links being positioned using "float:right" as when I make test text with <div style="float:right"> I get the same positioning effect.

Thanks for any tips ! Debivort 08:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:How to fix bunched-up edit links. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Common Problem

The infobox is very good template to use in any wikki for right side navigation , or content related navigation , but there is a common problem in implentation of infobox template that many time the box doesent appear. I am implementing a wiki [1] here We are implementing the infobox template IPR look through it at [2] the same like a template Intellectual_Property in wiki but no box is appearing. What to do is any one can suggest any solution . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Siddhast (talk • contribs).

You're missing the styles that are defined here in MediaWiki:Common.css. If you can't figure out how to fix this on your own, I suggest you ask at the mediawiki-l mailing list. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Film Director Infobox

Isn't it time we had a specific film director box? Editors have often used the Actor format (Scorsese, Hitchcock are examples) but it isn't ideal. El Ingles 22:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am truly amazed that there isn't one. Nemobius 05:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Placement of InfoBoxes

There is a conflict of guidelines. The InfoBox guideline says to insert the InfoBox in the top right of an article, yet the MoS guideline says that an image should be placed in the top right of an article unless there is a compelling reason not to. There is a discussion about this on the MoS [3]. The MoS guidelines predate the InfoBox guidelines and are overarching. The specific guideline to use a picture or image in the top right predates the InfoBox guidelines. Therefore the InfoBox guideline is inappropriate and in conflict with an existing consensual guideline. I have made the adjustment. Any queries please raise them on the MoS talkpage. SilkTork 17:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This is being debated at [[4]]; but, for what it's worth, I don't think your changes are justified. Guidelines which fail to reflect common practice will be ignored; if you want to change it, you need to persuade editors to change their practices, not just alter a document which doesn't even have guideline status. TSP 00:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Bug on a template

I don't know where else to report this, but there is a bug on a template, {{Infobox religious building}} that needs fixing. Basically it is adding a - to the upper left of the pages it is on, see the template's talkpage for other descriptions of this bug and any of the pages the template is used on to see the bug. Thanks in advance, D. Recorder 05:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. –Pomte 05:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks, D. Recorder 05:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for assistance on Template:Infobox book

Is there a clean/simple way to make the ISBN field on infobox book work? There was some discussion about it a couple of months ago on the talk page there, but no clean way presented itself right off, short of saying ISBN again - ie, ISBN ISBN XXXXXXXXX. Thoughts? MrZaius^talk 10:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)