| Revision as of 23:15, 20 September 2013 editCurly Turkey (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users103,777 edits →Enforcing infobox parameters (or not)?: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:17, 21 September 2013 edit undoPostdlf (talk | contribs)Administrators91,186 edits →Enforcing infobox parameters (or not)?Next edit → | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
| If the editors of the articles are to be compelled to include parameters they disagree with, I think the MoS should reflect this. If that were the case, and this was clearly spelled out, I would've just skipped having the infobox in the article entirely. ] (]) 23:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC) | If the editors of the articles are to be compelled to include parameters they disagree with, I think the MoS should reflect this. If that were the case, and this was clearly spelled out, I would've just skipped having the infobox in the article entirely. ] (]) 23:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :...and other editors would just add one in. It isn't about you because you don't ] the article, and you're not "compelled" to do anything except respect the ] of other editors. Infoboxes for novel articles that give first edition publication info are standard and consensus-supported. So far, your argument has just been "I don't get why it's important." ''']''' ('']'') 00:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:17, 21 September 2013
 | Manual of Style   | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 Archives | |||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Incomplete year ranges
I brought this up at Template talk:Infobox television awhile ago, but no response. There are a few infoboxes for TV shows that have "(2000–)". The en dash is supposed to mean current or continuing (ambiguous in itself). Is this ever acceptable? It seems to me that it's grammatically incorrect to not have the dash followed by another year or "present". Also, is making parentheticals < small > a good thing or not? --Musdan77 (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Recommendations for multiple infoboxes
Some articles benefit from having two infoboxes, usually at the top of the article. Examples: ICO (file format), Opus (audio format), Shooting of Trayvon Martin. It would be useful to have some recommendations as to when this is allowed or encouraged/discouraged, especially below the top of the article. X-Fi6 (talk) 03:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
RfC on icons in Infoboxes
Please see Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Icons#RfC on infobox images for details and to provide feedback. Thanks. –Quiddity (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Capitalization of infobox names
The page says
- Name the template Template:Infobox some subject (some subject should be in the singular and capitalized as per normal usage—see WP:NAME).
Actually, almost all infoboxes use lower case; e.g. {{Infobox school}}, {{Infobox person}}, {{Infobox settlement}}, etc. The only capitalized names are for proper nouns ({{Infobox Swiss town}}, {{Infobox UK place}}). -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes; that is what is meant by "normal usage". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I guess I misunderstood the sentence. -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- No problem. If you think the wording could be clearer, make suggestions, or boldly edit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I guess I misunderstood the sentence. -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Enforcing infobox parameters (or not)?
We all know that infoboxes are neither required nor prohibited. When, they are included in a page, what are the guidelines on what parameters to include or exclude?
I wrote the The End of the Road article (a novel) from top to bottom, and in the end decided to limit the infobox parameters to those that apply to all editions of the book (so no |publisher=, |isbn=, |pages=, or |image= parameters). Another editor reinstated the image and other parameters. We took it to the editor's talk page, and the editor took it to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Novels#The End of the Road by John Barth image debate. Two other editors joined in discussion and have insisted that I include those parameters, as "the infobox information is supposed to familiarize the audience with the original first edition physical form of the book", which was news to me—it doesn't say that on the template's instruction page, and that doesn't seem to be the case with infoboxes for other types of articles.
If the editors of the articles are to be compelled to include parameters they disagree with, I think the MoS should reflect this. If that were the case, and this was clearly spelled out, I would've just skipped having the infobox in the article entirely. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- ...and other editors would just add one in. It isn't about you because you don't WP:OWN the article, and you're not "compelled" to do anything except respect the WP:CONSENSUS of other editors. Infoboxes for novel articles that give first edition publication info are standard and consensus-supported. So far, your argument has just been "I don't get why it's important." postdlf (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)