Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 12

Change of infobox musical artist to infobox person

Hi all,

I'm hoping to gain editorial consenus or opinions on creating a hybrid of Infobox person/musical artist (e.g. Hilary Duff, Ciara, Fergie) for each musical artist. You can incorporate a lot more information about their life in such a format- it strikes a fine balance between both musical career and personal life (of which I am sure most people would be more interested in). There must be more information in that infobox than just about their musical career. Its purpose is to be a summary of their life as wellas their musical career, and I feel like the infobox musical artist template simply is not efficient enough in this respect.

Opinions and discussions in regards to this will be greatly appreciated- whether on this page or on my talk page :) Feel free to contribute and/or "second the motion".

Miss.Indecisive (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Left a notice about this discussion at Template talk:Infobox musical artist, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians and Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose, I'm not at all certain that most people would be more interested in a musician's personal life. Infobox musical artist summarizes the person's life as a musician, while details about the person's life (and details about anything else for that matter) can and should be placed in the text. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure if I Oppose or Support this idea but I do know that when I started looking into this, I noticed something...it's interesting the blend of Infobox:musical artist and Infobox:person that Wikipedia articles does have in various musicians' articles, similar to the fact that many actors' articles don't use Infobox:actor at all, they use Infobox:person instead (just check out some actors' articles, like Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton, Peter O'Toole, Patrick Stewart, Patrick Swayze, Halle Berry and so on). With musicians, Infobox:person does give the editor more choice in the sheer number of the parameters they can use but does not allow for any personal life, like spouse, children, partners. Infobox;Musical artist allows for label, associated acts, genre, instrument, notable instrument but will not summarize any of the artist's personal life. If the Infobox is supposed to provide an overview, a brief summary of the entire article, why is the personal life then ignored? To look at one example, why is John Lennon's personal life ignored in his article's Infobox? Because it uses Infobox:musical artist not Infobox:person. Shearonink (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Shearonink :) why should we completely neglect their personal life? Why not use an infobox format that can incorporate both aspects so that most people are satisfied- those who wish to know about the musical career can do so, and those who wish to know about their personal life can do so. We shouldn't have to neglect either, so why not have both? Often readers have to sift through overwhelming pieces of information on the musical artist page before they can find out about spouses, children etc.

Miss.Indecisive (talk) 12:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose: If it's really necessary to include personal information that Musical Artist doesn't provide (which in most cases it won't be), then what's wrong with simply embedding Musical Artist inside Person, as suggested here? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a great idea, but it would be helpful if that workaround with linkage to Jennifer Love Hewitt as an example was made part of the various infobox pages that editors might possibly refer to, including Template:..., WikiProject:..., etc. Heh, "Simply embedding"?...to new editors and sometimes to folks like me with over 15K edits, sometimes simply isn't all that simple. I confess, I didn't know that embedding was even possible with these Infoboxes... Shearonink (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

We certainly should show basic, non-musical biographical details in the infobox; there is much support for this, as the many requests, going back years, and seen in the template's talk page archives, shows. The method of doing so, is to use infobox person for as much of the relevant detail as possible, and to then embed the musical artist infobox onto that, using the |module= parameter, to display aspects of their musical career. This is, of course, already possible with no changed to either template necessary. @Miss.Indecisive: If you have an article in mind, I'll make a demonstration conversion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I have actually tried that and succeeded- on Fergie's page for example (if that's the format you were referring to). Could you also make a demonstration on maybe...Britney Spears' page?

And the thing is, there have been changes-unopposed, unlike with mine unfortunately- to the infobox format of Hilary Duff and Katy Perry. They have infobox person with infobox musical artist embeded as well. If all the musical artists could have an infobox format like Jennifer Love Hewitt and Fergie, I think people would be satisfied in being able to read both about their personal and musical life. Could we extend this format to all musical artists? And if so, how would this be done?

Miss.Indecisive (talk) 08:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay replying; as noted below there are examples on Beyoncé & Victoria Beckham. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd at least like a spouse field included in infobox musical artist, since the lack implies that all musical artists are single.--Auric talk 17:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

No it doesn't. A spouse field is unnecessary in this template, as very few artists have spouses that are relevant. Basically, it isn't a "key fact" about a musical artist. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Since the field should only be used when the spouse is notable (i.e has an article, or at least a viable red link), that seems

• Comment: This was tested on several musical artists pages, and even brought up on the template for the person infobox. I think it should be merged. Why should actors' marriages and children automatically be more notable than music artists? I know what some of us were doing were using the person template and embedding the music infobox into the template. Such as what is done on the Beyoncé article and it looks quite nice. I think either a merge is to be made, or embedding continues. I know several articles attempted this, and were reverted. But that many enjoyed the change (such as myself). Another good example is that of Victoria Beckham, who has renounced her music career and has become quite a successful person in the fashion business. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 20:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Although there are special cases where there are justified reasons to change an infobox, such as if the subject becomes more notable for reasons other than being a musician e.g. Jennifer Lopez, Cher, Victoria Beckham, Queen Latifah, Mandy Moore etc. However, if the reason is unrelated to their notability (such as a personal relationship as is the cases on Fergie (singer)), considering that subject X would not have an article of their own just for being married to person Y, then why change an appropriate musical artist infobox to a person infobox for this reason alone?

However, a discussion to add the parameters to the infobox on Template talk:Infobox musical artist would be more constructive than simply merging it to Infobox person? Tanbircdq (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Nor would we have an article about Fergie because she was born on March 27, 1975; is aged 38; or is from Hacienda Heights, California. Yet all those are in the infobox. Nowhere has the community agreed that a fact may only go in an infobox if it is the reason for the subject's notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Auric, livelikemusic and Andy- a spouse field should definitely be included! Indeed why is it that actors have their personal life (spouses and children) shown in the infobox whereas it is neglected in infobox musical artist? Often one has to search through lengthy articles about musicians to read about their spouses and children, whereas this would be made easier and more efficient if it was placed in the infobox.

It isn't about having spouses that are "relevant"- what you may perceive as being relevant may not be relevant in the eyes of others. In the words of Andy: Nowhere has the community agreed that a fact may only go in an infobox if it is the reason for the subject's notability. Having a musical artist infobox neglects aspects of personal life, whereas infobox musical artist with embedded infobox person strikes a fine balance between musical and personal life- neglecting neither.

Miss.Indecisive (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I will postulate that at least 98% of musical artists are not as famous as Jennifer Lopez or Cher. (See also: long tail, and I wonder if WP:BIAS might also be relevant.) As such, most musicians' personal lives are not subject to the same media coverage or scrutiny as those of major celebrities – we may simply not know who the spouse is, and there may not be a reliable source for it (yesterday I removed such information from Arthur Blythe for this reason). On the other hand, Ella Fitzgerald and Ray Brown were married, and both of them were famous, so in such cases I could see adding this information to the infobox. But I believe it is presumptuous to say that someone reading an article about a musician is interested in the subject's marital status – again, context is relevant, and it's why Infobox musical artist has a notable instruments parameter (which, in another context, would be completely trivial). So I'd suggest using Infobox musical artist with embedded Infobox person for celebrities like Madonna or Cher – I don't want to seem presumptuous myself, but I will hazard a guess that most people reading Roy Campbell, Jr. or Djivan Gasparyan are not interested (or, certainly not primarily interested) in whether they're married or to whom. To put it another way: it probably won't hurt anything to add this parameter to Infobox musical artist, but in this context, for most articles this isn't (and won't be) nearly as important as you seem to think it is. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Forgot to mention this earlier, but it's not unusual when other resources about music omit marital information. For example, The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock 'n Roll generally doesn't include this information unless it's a high-profile subject like Elvis (or Sonny and Cher, or John Lennon). Same with The All Music Guide to Jazz, except in cases like the aformentioned Ella Fitzgerald and Ray Brown (or John and Alice Coltrane). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I think those in favour of adding this parameter need to realize that this template is used in a lot of articles where a spouse field would be either unnecessary (in the case of many musicians) or completely irrelevant (in the case of the thousands of band articles that use this template). Per WP:IBX: "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." For the large majority of articles using this template, a spouse is simply not a "key fact" about that person/band. For the few articles where it is a key fact about them (say, John Lennon or Cher), that's where embedding the template into Infobox Person becomes useful. Further down on IBX is WP:IBX#General considerations: "Is the field of value? How important is the field to the articles that will use the infobox?" and "Will the field be relevant to many of the articles that will use the infobox? If the field is relevant to very few articles, it should probably not be included at all." Again, very few articles using this template will find a Spouse parameter to be important or relevant. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Not too sure about this- isn't it also presumptuous to say that people would not be interested in their personal life? Why else would they search someone up? They do this to read about them- "them" encompasses not only their musical career but other aspects of their life. Why does the spouse have to be famous though- is that mentioned as an infobox requirement or is that in itself an assumption? If there is not a reliable source relating to spouse(s) or if the spouse is completely unknown then of course there is no need to mention it and the hybrid format can be ditched. However, when information about spouse and children is known, whether spouse be well known or not, it should be incorporated in the infobox. So you do have a point in that this format is applicable to only certain musicians- where information is known about their spouse(s) and children.

It's pretty contentious what can be called "key". The real question here is - does it matter whether the spouse is famous, and where can this 'hybrid format' be considered applicable? Miss.Indecisive (talk) 11:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The page at WP:IBX is headed with a template that includes the wording "Use common sense in applying [the page]; it will have occasional exceptions". Further, the part you quote is one of the least helpful clauses in the whole MoS, since it neither reflects custom and practice, nor the fact that such template parameters are optional, and do not show when no data is entered. Either way we're not bound by it, and no-one has yet made a case why the infobox for a subject with a notable spouse about whom we have an article should not contain the linked name of that spouse. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I just want to respond to the claim, which a couple of people have made, that actors are specifically permitted marriage information and such, with the implication that it should thus also be permitted in the musical artist infobox. This claim is not true: there is no such special rule for actors - any time you see an infobox on an actor's page that includes spouse and/or children, it's the generic person infobox. — Paul A (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I still don't understand the resistance- having an infobox blended with musical artist provides sufficient information about the artist, both personal and musical, which is why they have an entire page dedicated to them in the first place. If the name of the spouse is known, and information about children is known, need it be omitted completely from the infobox?

Miss.Indecisive (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

If what you want is an infobox blended with musical artist, the embedded-module method already allows you to do that. There is no need to create a new template that merely duplicates a function that already exists. — Paul A (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes I'm aware of that, but the main focus here is gaining consensus to use this format for each musical artist (only where name of spouse is known, and information about children is known). Would I be able to use this format for any musical artist- without it being reverted? Miss.Indecisive (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - The claim that one has to search through lengthy articles to read about a subject's personal life is complete nonsense as pretty much all articles have a personal life section where applicable, which all readers can click to in an instant.

The hybrid format should only be used where there is a need for it, as per the above examples where a musician is notable for other endeavours such as also being an actor, businessperson, comedian, model etc, so more information about them can be included, NOT because they have a notable partner or child. Unless the personal information parameters can be included in the musician infobox (which all infoboxes do have except the musician and artist infobox), wholesale changes to musicians' (who are primarily musicians) articles from infobox musician to infobox person (almost making the musician infobox redundant) should not be done purely based on a WP:LIKEIT argument that articles need to somehow to strike a balance between as subjects' musical and personal life. Tanbircdq (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Two discussions regarding Infobox economist parameters

Two discussions regarding Template talk:Infobox economist are underway. One involves colors and prominence of the school/tradition banner. The other involves inclusion of the "opposed" parameter. Interested editors are invited to comment. – – S. Rich (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Project banner

We should have (or do we already - I can't find one) a project banner template, to go on the talk page of relevant pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Geobox for buildings

Please see Template talk:Geobox#Use for buildings; I could use some help implementing the proposed changes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Sally Jewell

It looks like an IP was having some issues with the infobox at that page, and ultimately removed it. I lack the technical expertise to fix the problem. Would someone mind taking a look? Go Phightins! 13:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox book request for comment

In August last year, all publication data in {{infobox book}} was merged into one new |published= parameter. Work began on migrating existing uses to the new format, until questions were raised about the effect this had on data granularity.

Any input and suggestions on a proposed fix, which keeps the new one-line per edition formatting while providing full data granularity would be much appreciated (centralised discussion here). Thanks. ‑‑xensyria^T 23:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Composite and collapsable section Infoboxes

Is it possible or does it already exist to be able to have infoboxes on pages which are composites of other infoboxes for example Infoboxes for Models and Singers which use the relevant section from the two infoboxes but where both sections are collapsable. I am wondering as when it comes to some notable people who have many carers such as people who are both models and singer or politicians who have been notable previously such as astronauts or sportspeople is there a way of having one infobox containing all of the information relevant to the individual in the one infobox as opposed to having multiple separate infoboxes for the person. If this currently doesn't exist is there a way of going about initiating this process and allowing it to be come a reality. I am not advocating or suggesting the removal of separate boxes in articles or individual info boxes. It is just seemingly silly not to be able to have this capability for people who are notable and for more than one reason. Sport and politics (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

yes, it is possible to (1) embed an infobox into another one (see the modules part of {{infobox person}}), and (2) it is technically possible to have that section collapsed, but this part is more controversial (see Template:Collapsed infobox section begin). Frietjes (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Question on infobox pseudo-namespace

Am I right to believe that google and others use infobox pseudo-namespace to grab info and it is better to bypass all redirects to infoboxes that not use Infobox ... name convention? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

We are now effectively "Google snippet providers" and thus should be exceedingly careful about what is in them. Collect (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

contentious material in infoboxes

Ought the project consider any standards for what appears to be a growing problem: the insertion of "contentious claims" in infoboxes even where such claims are not explicitly stated ass fact in articles? Google appears to rely heavily on them, and thus any claim made in an infobox becomes the first thing a searcher finds on any topic. My own suggestion would borrow from existing policies:

No claim shall be placed in an infobox which is disputed in the main test of the article, and where possible the 'least contentious' wording for any claim shall be used in any infobox. All claims about living persons in infoboxes are subject a strong interpretation of WP:BLP.

Any opinions thereon? Collect (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you have some examples? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The example currently is UKIP where the discussion is whether a list of reliable sources calling it "far right" (and fully an equal number just using "right" and specifically distancing the UKIP from the "far right") is sufficient to label the party "far right" in the infobox where the body of the article does not so state, but quotes a number of sources using "right wing" in the body of the article. My suggestion is that where a term or claim might be reasonably deemed contentious, that the least contentious term should be in the infobox / Google snippet as any infobox claim is intrinsically "in Wikipedia's voice.". Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I see the example. Rather than get into the discussion on the UKIP talk page, I'll comment here. The reference for the infobox entry is problematic. It refers to page 2009, but the book only has 251 pages. (Perhaps they are referring to a 2009 edition in error?) The book itself has chapters about nordic countries, not the UK. So this particular reference (and infobox entry) can be removed as failing verification. With this in mind, I'd say that contentious claims ought to go in the text where they can be better described and documented. – S. Rich (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Bare transclusions of Template:Infobox

There is a list at User:Pigsonthewing/Direct calls to Infobox of 2398 articles which use {{Infobox}} directly. While that's not prohibited, of course, there's often a more suitable template to use, such as in this edit. Some are simply frames for images. Please feel free to strike through items in that list if you convert them (or if you check and nothing needs to be done; in which case, please leave a comment there also). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Infobox for audio equipment

Would it be possible to develop Infobox for audio equipment? I have created an article UE Boom and originally used mobile phone infobox because of many similarities in the fields, however it resulted in some controversy. Therefore creation of a new infobox was proposed by a experienced editors that would be used on articles about Bluetooth speakers, loudspeakers, in-ear monitors and headphones. Dmatteng (talk) 07:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@Dmatteng: have you considered {{Infobox information appliance}}? seems to be more generic than mobile phone, and has the sort of parameters you need. Frietjes (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Let me ponder it. What is your opinion about Wikipedia:Help desk#Infobox ? Dmatteng (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Colorful icons in infoboxes

WikiProject Infoboxes/Archive 8

FIFA ranking
Current	13 +1

What do folks think about the colorful icon in the adjacent infobox — i.e., a green triangle for upward movement in the rankings? (There is a corresponding red triangle for a decrease). You can look at United States men's national soccer team if you want to see the whole infobox in context. My impression is that they should not be there, for the same reasons as WP:INFOBOXFLAG — the icon is distracting and gives undue weight to one field. Other thoughts? Barryjjoyce (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

They are different in that flags won't change -- the flagcon simply resays what the wording says: UK, USA, USSR, UVWXYZ. The rankings are dynamic. I believe there are bots that scan various rankings and make changes automatically, so in those instances we do not have info which becomes stale. I suggest that we support those rankings that get updated promptly and properly. – S. Rich (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Adding the +1 is questionable as well, because it does not state over which period of time this increase occurred, therefore it provides no information. I would suggest only using the actual current rank for the infobox and discussion the historic ranking in the main article. The green/red arrow also gives undue weight to the difference in comparison to the actual rank. CRwikiCA talk 18:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Add a spot for iconic quotes

What about adding a space in infoboxes for an iconic quote, perhaps going right below the title? I'd see this especially appropriate for events, films and persons. Examples:

• The Blitz could have "This was their finest hour"
• Casablanca (film) could have "Here's looking at you kid"
• Martin Luther King, Jr, could have "I have a dream"

What thinks everyone about this? Ego White Tray (talk) 05:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I think I'd leave it to individual wikiprojects, but it doesn't seem immediately offensive in any way. I'm just wondering if some subject areas would be best to leave it out over concerns about it being a hotbed of contention. Why don't you mock it up in a sandbox for a large and active wikiproject and we can see what people think? VanIsaac_WS^cont 06:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not support this proposal for three reasons. First, readers not familiar with the subject will find an infobox quote out of context to be meaningless. Second, for certain high-profile subjects, editors will find it tough to get people to agree on one quote (eg, the Casablanca film has several famous lines, some public figures have several memorable quotes), so you may end up with editors trying to insert multiple quotes, adding unhelpful clutter to the infoboxes. Third, some events/films/persons have no iconic quote, but some editors will stretch to insert some quote that isn't particularly iconic. Barryjjoyce (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I very strongly agree with Barryjjoyce. However, if it comes down to including it, please omit "iconic" and just use "quote." "Iconic" is unnecessary in this context; I don't believe anyone expects to find mundane quotes in the infobox ("I forgot to pick up a loaf of bread while I was out." – Alfred, Lord Tennyson). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Question & potential need for an adapted infobox for European Parliament election, 2014

Hi, we've been having a discussion about the use of election infobox over at European Parliament election, 2014. Consensus is that the headings in the infobox "First party", "Second party", etc. need to be changed to "First group", "Second group", etc. Is it possible to effect this change this within the current template? Or do we need to have an adapted template? If we need an adapted template, there are some further changes that would be desirable as well; and the adapted template would be useful and an improvement for all such EP election articles. I should note that this proposed change is part of a compromise we've arrived at after substantial discussion. If anyone can let me know what how to go about this, I'd be quite grateful. Gabrielthursday (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It should be possible to do that in the existing infobox; please raise the issue on its talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Infoboxes at Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should Persondata template be removed from articles?

Discussion can be found at here. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Foreign spelling below English name

At the top of infoboxes of BLPs we usually have the person's name as found in the article title or perhaps the first line in the lead. What I'm noticing in some tennis bios as that some editors are putting the foreign spelling right under the English spelling... as in Peangtarn Plipuech. Is this the correct way to do it? Isn't the Thai spelling in the lead enough? I notice that the King of Thailand doesn't have his infobox this way. Is there something in the manual of style I missed that tells us the correct way of doing this? Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

They should use |native_name=, like in {{Infobox person}}. I'll add that to the tennis biography infobox, later. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

That explains that edit. Should be using the appropriate {{lang}} template. Related discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Move pronunciations, other names and other language names from lead to a note or sidebox. --  Gadget850 ^talk 11:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: It's not showing up in the visible output of the tennis bio infobox, not at that article, anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

But that's only part of the question. I have no problem with that native_name parameter... it works fine. I have no problem with the parenthesis in the lead with the Thai language lettering. But do we really need it in both places of an article? To me it seems one place is enough and I wanted to know current guidelines or consensus thoughts on whether one place is enough, and if so, where that one place is best. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Infoboxes now all situated on the left of the article. What's going on?

What's happened to the infoboxes? All of them are now positioned to the left, requiring lengthy scrolling before even getting to the article? Voceditenore (talk) 05:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, seems to have been fixed now. Voceditenore (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Not for me--still see them all at the left with no border. Rracecarr (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

ok, clearing browser cache did it. Rracecarr (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

TemplateData: Extending use; removing redundancy

Please see my proposal for combining TemplateData and template parameter documentation; and including Wikidata equivalences Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Remedy six of the infoboxes case

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox for an initiative regarding this recommended remedy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Changing project space without discussion?

Yesterday, the project page was changed by a user who is not a project member (to my knowledge), without an obvious prior discussion. I believe that a single user's problem shouldn't go on the project page without a discussion of members, and after a discussion better be inserted by a member. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

[1] — unhelpful while it reinforces groupthink of insiders and a state of denial regarding issues that might be useful to solve.

Re. "project page was changed by a user who is not a project member" — precisely: Wikipedia allows this to counter groupthink in the sense of "everything is in order no problems to solve". I expect project members to be interested in solving problems, not to deny them. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not just infobxoes that are not included in those PDFs. It's tables at all. So it's more of an issue with the PDF renderer rather than infoboxes. -- WOSlinker (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. But an argument not to use infoboxes (at least those containing something that is essential to the article), as in: an argument "beyond repair", because nobody is going to get it repaired... Thanks for clarifying. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

sounds like an argument to not use the PDF renderer. I can provide you with javascript to disable the link. Frietjes (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, err, no. It is an argument not to use the infoboxes. Let's ask the wider community whether this argument can be used. Oh I forgot, the infobox supporters put remedy six on hold. Then we don't ask the wider community, and I use it as an argument. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Removing Infobox influences/influenced parameters on the Freud article.

I'd be grateful for comments re the current RfC on the Talk:Sigmund Freud which asks "Should the Freud Infobox have "influences/influenced" parameters at all?".

The Freud article is linked to the Infobox:Scientist template and, as I understand it, there has been no discussion here on removing these parameters from this or other similar templates (eg Philosopher, Scholar), notwithstanding the 2013 RfC which led to the removal of these parameters from the Infobox Person Template.

The wider question I have, and the reason I post here, is can/should parameters in existing Infobox templates be removed on an article by article basis as the RfC assumes? Would this not conflict with the Infobox Project Page objective of: "Creating standard sets of parameters to be used in related infoboxes"? Almanacer (talk) 13:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Phone App Infobox?

Is there a recommended Infobox for an article about a smart phone or tablet app? Thanks, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I would use {{Infobox software}}. — Paul A (talk) 03:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, good suggestion, thank you! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Weird Infobox behaviour on Boethius page

I edited the page on Boethius and removed from his infobox unsourced mentions that his death may have occured in 525.[2] But for some reason the date of death in the infobox hasnt actually changed. I'm finding this really bizarre, does anyone know why this is? Bosstopher (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Multiple infoboxes. You edited the Christian leader infobox (with the purple banner, further down the page), but not the Philosopher infobox at the top of the page. — Paul A (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Chemical infoboxes

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Chemical infobox#Chemical infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Composer infoboxes redux

A discussion is taking place at Talk:Frédéric_Chopin#Infobox.3F on installing an infobox for the article. Montanabw^(talk) 20:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Infobox causing strange page formatting

Hi,

I've seen several cases of infoboxes causing strange formatting in the article text due to the length of the infobox and the length and spacing of the article's text. An example is in the article Great Continental Railway Journeys where, under the section "Episodes", the table of episodes starts further down the page where the infobox ends. I'm just wondering if anyone knows of a way to fix something like this? Thank you in advance! Rystheguy (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Rystheguy, the rendering will depend on the width of your browser window, the width of the tables, and the width of the infobox (and probably your web browser). Frietjes (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Accessibility

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility#Accessibility with infoboxes regarding accessibility and infoboxes.—Bagumba (talk) 07:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Trayvon Martin

There is a discussion taking place at Talk:Trayvon Martin#Infobox again on whether or not to include an infobox in the article. --RexxS (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, the discussion at Talk:Laurence Olivier#Infobox continues. I've not been called an idiot this time—yet. Alakzi (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Ludwig van Beethoven

There is a discussion taking place at Talk:Ludwig van Beethoven#Infobox on whether or not to include an infobox in the article. --RexxS (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox of individuals that have no religion.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Infobox question

I am trying to use the Template:Infobox civil conflict for a civil conflict involving three parties (see Input on proposed infobox on the Talk:Selma to Montgomery marches page. The issue is the width of an infobox to incorporate three parties becomes too large. Is there a way to redesign the infobox to display each party in a horizontal section versus a vertical section? Or, disconnect the "Parties to the civil conflict" or "Lead figures" section from the infobox with a link in the infobox to the disconnected sections? Not sure where to go on Wikipedia to examine this issue. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Persondata RfC

An RfC regarding the methodical removal of Persondata is taking place at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Thanks, —Msmarmalade (talk) 07:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Need to create Infobox on atmosphere

Currently, all articles dealing with the atmosphere of a planet, do not have an "atmosphere" infobox template. Instead, many use a custom-made table. Some have nothing at all. I am requesting the creation of such infobox, or help creating it. Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I can help; please give links to some of the articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Great! After, I should present the prospect infobox template to the Solar System Project for review before displaying it live. BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Atmosphere of Venus
• Atmosphere of Earth
• Atmosphere of Mercury
• Atmosphere of Mars
• Atmosphere of Jupiter
• Atmosphere of Uranus
• Neptune#Atmosphere (large section and data. can use the infobox)
• Pluto#Atmosphere (large section and data. can use the infobox)
• Atmosphere of the Moon
• Atmosphere of Titan
• Atmosphere of Io (large section and data. Could split the article and use the infobox)
• Ganymede#Atmosphere and ionosphere (large section and data. Could split the article and use the infobox)
• Atmosphere of Triton

@BatteryIncluded: Thank you. The matter is complicated, because there are at least four different kinds of infoboxes. Jupiter's has a column comparing values to those of the Sun. Mercury's has columns for two types of measurement. Triton's has separate columns for 1989 and 2010. Mars' more like is what I expected to see, and what I would recommend. However, I think wider consensus needs to be obtained first, given these differences. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and the infobox can bring some order. Partial pressure can be easily converted to percentage (which is more understandable), or add that parameter in addition of percentages. Comparisons with the Sun could be left in the article body. Triton's will use the data obtained in situ (1989). It would not be straight forward but am sure we can work out a draft we can discuss with the Solar System Project and reach a consensus on the parameters to include. What do you think? Thanks. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Childhood location parameter

For biography pages, I would argue that there should be a parameter regarding the location the individuals childhood. Many people are born in one location, then move to another location early on in their childhood, spending the majority of there childhood in a particular location, Surely this is at least equally as relevant as birth place to the biography. DocHeuh (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Is external media a no-no for the module parameter?

I've recently had this edit, adding a short YouTube interview with Raewyn Connell to the infobox, reverted. The edit summary by the reverting editor states: "external media does not go in info box, belongs in external links section", is this policy / consensus / WP:MOS etc.? I've tried to find something that says either yes or no but I don't see it. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

There was a discussion in November 2011 which favoured excluding most kinds of links to external sites. A link to an interview doesn't strike me as consistent with the aims of infoboxes stated at WP:Manual of Style/Infoboxes: "to summarize key facts that appear in the article." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

What sort of thing is the module parameter meant to be used for then? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Child infoboxes, like {{Infobox engineering career}}. Alakzi (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Or internal media (i.e. video/audio from Commons) - short sound clips of a BLP subject speaking are quite often placed in there; see Benedict Cumberbatch for an example. HTH --RexxS (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

It would be better if there were a separate parameter for internal media, so we can code up |module= to use <th>, as it should. Alakzi (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Rarely are external links appropriate for biographical infoboxes. Generally, external links should be placed in the "external links" section at the bottom of the article page per WP:EL. That said, nine out of ten Youtube links that I have seen added to articles are fancruft (or worse), and simply do not represent encyclopedic content worthy of inclusion anywhere. Before adding any link to any article, ask yourself: does this represent encyclopedic content? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Heading normally matches article title?

The question of whether the infobox heading should match the article title, minus any disambiguation part, unless there is good reason to do otherwise, is a key point of contention over at Talk:Hillary_Clinton#Infobox_heading_survey. Is there any guideline anywhere that addresses this? --В²C ☎ 00:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes states:

"The template should have a large, bold title line. Either a table caption or a header can be used for this. It should be named the common name of the article's subject but may contain the full (official) name; this does not need to match the article's Wikipedia title, but falling back to use that (with the WikiProject Infoboxes/Archive 8 magic word) is usually fine. It should not contain a link."

--Boson (talk) 10:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Infobox: list of fonts on Mac OS X

Hello, I've created an infobox collecting pages for fonts bundled with Mac OS X, complementing that already existing for Windows. It's in my sandbox. Would someone be able to check through it to make sure it's coded OK? I haven't done this before so wanted to check. Blythwood (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Blythwood: That looks fine; but it's not an infobox - it's what we all a Navbox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Oops, sorry! Will repost on that forum, or if you feel there's no point will just publish. Blythwood (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

No, it's fine. Be bold! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

OK. I'm struggling to see what I do... I thought I edited here and previewed using the lower controls to check before creating, but it's not loading. Is there a manual on this I've missed? Should probably know this, sorry. Blythwood (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Just create a page called, say, Template:Mac OS X typefaces and paste your markup into that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Fab, thanks. Blythwood (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

See Template talk:Infobox single#Proposed Deprecation Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC: What should the language infobox display when editors have not found any speaker figures?

There is a RfC at Template talk:Infobox language#RfC: What should the language infobox display when editors have not found any speaker figures?:

In the case that editors have looked for speaker figures, but have not found any, they can set the parameter speakers of Template:Infobox language to ?. This currently causes the infobox to display “Native speakers (no data)”. There are two questions:

1. Should we display something in this case, or should we display nothing?
2. If we should display something, then what should it say?

Thanks for your comments. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 09:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Template rendering problems after importing Template:Infobox

Hello,

I have WP 1.25.1 from source.

I wanted to be able to post condensed meta on the right-side of my articles in an "Infobox", like Wikipedia does.

Found several "How-to" on exporting/importing templates from one source wiki to destination, like:

• http://trog.qgl.org/20110815/setting-up-infobox-templates-in-mediawiki/
• https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Importing_Wikipedia_infoboxes_tutorial

Followed the step, imported 20+ templates (checked "Include templates" on export page), and now none of my templates are rendering! Even completely standalone templates I wrote before (they worked before import) stopped working.

All with the same error, "Parser::braceSubstitution: template inclusion denied", ex:

>> Parser::braceSubstitution: template inclusion denied for Template:Documentation

Can anyone give me any pointers on what could be the cause?

I verified that:

• Lua interpreter (standalone, 5.1.4) itself is working, I have a log of successful Lua module invocations
• I have extensions: ParserFunctions, Scribunto, InputBox and TemplateData installed

Could it be that I am missing some recursively required templates?

(I noticed existence of some not ordinary templates, like "Template:((", or "Template:!!", etc.) If so, how could I identify which one(s)?

It seems "export" does not takes recursively all needed templates - it stops on first level of indirection. I tried to manually list all templates needed for Infobox with their children recursively - the list keeps growing with no end (have 270+ templates/modules in the list now).

If the Infobox "required templates" tree is so deep, is their a way to import all existing templates and modules at once? (Are they not part of install from source tarball? May be I have them locally already, just need to load to DB?)

And finally, if this route is so complex, is there an easier way to create an Infobox on a new wiki? How does everyone else accomplishing this?

Thanks, John. 68.174.167.16 (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Solved (Template rendering problems after importing Template:Infobox)

My mistake was in setup of another extension, it had nothing to do with importing of any template(s).

I mistakenly added NS_TEMPLATE const to $wgNonincludableNamespaces

Leaving the post up to document a way to repro and solve the problem for other users.

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Fastpass & MyMagic+ Infobox

What Infobox should be used for Disney's Fastpass and MyMagic+? I put Template:Infobox requested on both talk pages, but looking through Wikipedia:List of infoboxes, they don't seem to fit into any of them. Elisfkc (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Help request: Potential problem with Infobox Mineral

See Template talk:Infobox mineral § Reference field encouraging ref-laziness? Thanks! — Geekdiva (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Composers

I made a proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers, meant as a compromise between those who love and hate infoboxes (I simply find them useful). Please discuss. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:INFOBOX listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:INFOBOX. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Stock infobox template talk page editnotice

See {{Infobox/pagenotice}} for boilerplate editnotice, created after pretty massive disruption of Template talk:Infobox, Template talk:Infobox person, and other page with chains of content-dispute RfCs that all belong at WP:VPPOL or other venues.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Still look for help with Fastpass & MyMagic+ Infobox

What Infobox should be used for Disney's Fastpass and MyMagic+? I put Template:Infobox requested on both talk pages, but looking through Wikipedia:List of infoboxes, they don't seem to fit into any of them. I asked a couple months ago and never got any response. Elisfkc (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Elisfkc: {{infobox product}} seems fine off the cuff. Is there a reason why you think that wouldn't fit? --Izno (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Izno: maybe for Fastpass, but MyMagic+ is an entire technology suite of changes. Seems to me that it will be more than just a product. Elisfkc (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a product to me. There is also {{infobox brand}} if you're interested; not sure if that's a good one for general use. --Izno (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

WikInfoboxer: A tool to help users create infoboxes

The current creation of Wikipedia infoboxes is based on templates that are created and maintained collaboratively. While templates provide a standardized way of representing infobox information across Wikipedia articles, they pose several challenges. Different communities use different infobox templates for the same category articles; a template designed for a specific category of articles is used for other different categories and its attributes are miss-understood; attribute names differ (e.g., date of birth vs. birthdate), and attribute values are expressed using a wide variety of measurements and units. Finally, templates are free form in nature; when users fill attribute values no integrity check is performed on whether value is of appropriate type for the given attribute, often leading to erroneous infoboxes.

Guiding contributors in the creation of infoboxes would mean creating richer and more correct information.We are working on the Infoboxer system, which is a tool grounded in Semantic Web technologies that overcomes challenges in creating and updating infoboxes, along the way making the process easier for users. We have developed a simple research prototype of Infoboxer to test our ideas (http://sid01.cps.unizar.es/). However, as a research prototype, it is not ready to be used by Wikipedia editors yet. Therefore, we are applying for a Wikimedia Individual Engagement Grant which would enable us to transform a simple research prototype in a useful tool ready to be used for editors to create infoboxes for Wikipedia pages.

Please give us your advice in the discussion board of the proposal: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:IEG/WikInfoboxer

--raqueltl (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Infobox inner margins

Coming here from WT:Astronomical objects#Infobox planet's inner margins, where I posted an ad-hoc work-around to minimize the inner margins between infobox parameter names on the left and parameter values on the right. This creates a more compact Infobox, decreasing the interior whitespace and making the whole box shorter, without changing its width. There is support there for this to be a a global {{Infobox}} solution, instead of just a local ({{Infobox planet}}) solution. Could this be applied seamlessly to {{Infobox}} or is a new parameter switch (i.e. |compact=yes) a better alternative? Thanks.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you mean Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects #Infobox planet's inner margins, Tom. Now I've found it, I'll take a look. --RexxS (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Oops; correct & corrected.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

multiple images/icons in data on infoboxes

Please let me know if ther is a better place to ask this question. I'm developing an infobox for mahjong variations. I'd like to be able to put tile icons in the infobox and I've spent several hours trying to find infoboxes with that content or how to work around it...but I cannot find anything. Here are some examples for boxes I made for a few variations. The images would be like this:

Dragons:

Winds:

or will I have to create an image for all the combinations? Thanks in advance for your help :) Shabidoo | Talk 14:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking for help with adding a second image to Infobox Tool

Hi

Would a kind soul be able add extra fields so I can add a second image to Infobox tool? I've really tried to follow the instructions for adding extra fields but they are beyond me. I want to use the second image to add a video of the tool working.

Many thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

That should have done it.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dudemanfellabra: amazing, thanks very much, it works :) John Cummings (talk) 06:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)