Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox historic site

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ergo Sum (talk | contribs) at 19:33, 20 July 2023 (→Not sure why param 6s are not working: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconInfoboxes
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes
WikiProject iconHistoric sites Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Documentation page request

Please add
 Not done: please edit Template:Infobox historic site/doc directly — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @MSGJ: - I didn't know that page was there and was editable. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 19 March 2023

I made a change to the sandbox to allow for the default image size to be used, and removed the limit on the size of the image. Both make it so that the image is able to be displayed how the user and editor wish, without limiting them. Tests look okay. SWinxy (talk) 04:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we discuss this? The "default size" for infoboxes, while it sounds nice, was never too accurate. Most infoboxes have a default width of 250px, and thus upright=1.14 is a perfect default size. As well, many infoboxes have a max size parameter. No infobox should be wider than 325px, and none really are, but this prevents the many newer editors from making such a mistake, and does no harm otherwise. Can SWinxy provide any cases where these edits actually lead to improvements? ɱ (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
arrow Reverted pending discussion. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 15:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, my settings are to make images 400px wide for reasons. The problem is with infoboxes that think they know a better image size, and will override mine and others' preferences, be they set their preferred size larger or smaller, when there isn't a good rationale for doing so (e.g. important visual elements that can't be scaled along with the image). I've never seen a max size parameter until now, so I would disagree there are 'many' infoboxes with them. The vast majority of infoboxes I deal with don't force an image size. I am suspect of the claim that new editors would change the size of infobox images to be larger than they should. Does this even happen? Do editors not fix that? SWinxy (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to change the Image Use Policy, go there. See Wikipedia:Image use policy#Infobox and lead images, MOS:IMGSIZE, and search results for "maxsize" use. ɱ (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those project pages disagree with you. MOS:IMGSIZE: Except with very good reason, a fixed width in pixels (e.g. 17px) should not be specified. This ignores the user's base width setting, so upright=scaling factor is preferred whenever possible. WP:IMGSIZE: Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. |thumb|300px), which forces a fixed image width measured in pixels, disregarding the user's image size preference setting. They are clear and consistent that the image sizes should be left up to the user unless a very good reason is provided. I'm not sure where you're getting the numbers of 250px, 235px, and 1.14 from; those pages don't mention those values. There are only 85 templates that make use of the maxsize parameter; hardly 'many.' SWinxy (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a failure to read the entire section I linked. MOS:IMGSIZE says "Cases where fixed sizes may be used include for standardization of size via templates (such as within infobox templates or the display of country flag icons), for displaying reduced images sizes where space is constrained (such as..." ɱ (talk) 00:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if you want to change the Image Use Policy, go there. See Wikipedia:Image use policy#Infobox and lead images, MOS:IMGSIZE, and search results for "maxsize" use. 85 extremely high-use templates is many. ɱ (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a small carveout exception for other usages so that editors aren't pedantic about templates like {{Flagicon}}. All the other text surmount to "don't use fixed pixel widths". I don't feel that the image use policy needs changing, because it is pretty explicit about not setting a fixed size. SWinxy (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The search for maxsize shows a lot of maxsize in infoboxes because you changed it[1][2][3]. I oppose fixed image size, and I can't see it is policy base to have fixed image sizes. MOS:IMGSIZE and Wikipedia:Image use policy#Infobox and lead images both says you should use upright. Christian75 (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Small carveout exception", or in other words, policies and guidelines have small details you literally have to follow. I changed just a few infoboxes, and it looks like people largely agree with me. Several of these, including this case, were actually only restoring defaults that had existed for years and years until they were changed without discussion. ɱ (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ɱ: Where are all of these people who "largely agree with" you? Many of us have stated our objections to these fixed pixel sizes in multiple discussion over the past year or so. I can't recall anyone agreeing with your interpretation of the guidelines. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"I can't recall" isn't a good argument. As well, I have plenty of evidence of these parameters in use in extremely-high-use templates, for years to decades before your removals, and some for years after. Nobody else has recently objected enough to try to remove them, except for this user here, who wants them removed "for reasons". ɱ (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95: You proposed a solution to this debate at Template talk:Infobox bridge. I asked how it could happen twice and haven't heard back. If we could find a solution that works for both of us that would be very helpful. ɱ (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for help here, and the guidance was to use |upright= without specifying anything related to px sizes. I think if we just removed the default px and maxsize px, things would work fine. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into it. It looks slightly more complicated than that, as I can see from the Jan 2023 edits to {{infobox language}}. Will investigate... ɱ (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • The lead image in an infobox should not impinge on the default size of the infobox. (WP:IUP)
  • Cases where fixed sizes may be used include for standardization of size via templates (such as within infobox templates... (MOS:IMGSIZE)
  • Not sure why users here are arguing against simple policies and guidelines. ɱ (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can @Hike395: please pitch in on how to adjust this infobox to allow for scalable images and image maps? I was looking through your changes to the infobox language template. I was hoping we could find a solution without requiring new parameters, or are those optional? I am somewhat confused how that implementation functions. ɱ (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think {{infobox NRHP}} may work well with the code "|sizedefault=frameless|upright=1.136" (or 1.14). Images scale up with the user preferences set for 400px. ɱ (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a version in the sandbox which accepts an upright parameter and a fixed size parameter for both |image= and |image_map=
  • Unfortunately, there's no easy way for pushpin maps (|locmapin=) to accept upright parameters
  • The upright parameter defaults to 1.14, with a maximum of 1.5
  • The size parameter has a maximum of 325px. If it is unparsable as a number, it defaults to 250px
  • I had to add |image_map_upright= to accept an upright parameter for the image map.
  • If both upright and fixed size parameters are given, the fixed size overrides the upright.
What do editors think? — hike395 (talk) 05:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the maximum size of 325px in the sandbox works, I think it is unnecessary and contrary to MOS. If I have a browser window that is 2000px wide and choose a thumb size in Preferences of 400px because everything else looks too small in comparison to the rest of the page, image declarations should respect that thumb size preference, so the max size in px should be removed. If, on the other hand, the upright value overrides the px value, which it presumably should, then the max px size in the template doesn't do anything and can be removed. I do not have the energy right now to create test cases to see what actually happens. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Image Use Policy supersedes the MOS, a guideline. ɱ (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing that the IUP doesn't say that the infobox itself is limited to certain widths. Only that images inside them should conform to them. Further, the IUP offers a sample syntax that notably omits a fixed and maximum size. For infoboxes where a maximum size would be necessary, the infobox can enforce it (but it's not said that the infobox should enforce it). Again and again, you cite IUP and the MoS as if they agree with what you want—but they are unambiguous in their text to use default image sizes whenever possible. No infobox or yes infobox, the default is preferred, and it's up to the template to limit if it absolutely needs to. Is this a case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU? I'm getting deja vu from reading this thread from last year. SWinxy (talk) 02:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With that in mind, we can still allow users to scale up their own images in their preferences, but images should not be -set- at extraordinary widths that "impinge on the default size of the infobox." (WP:IUP) ɱ (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hike395: Looks great to me. ɱ (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some clarification and comments from me:

  • The maxsize of 325px is only enforced on the fixed size parameters |image_size= and |image_map_size=. If an editor uses an argument that is larger than 325px, the infobox would clip it to 325px. This does not affect upright parameters |image_upright= and |image_map_upright=, which would act normally. For example, if a user has set a preference for a thumbnail size of 400px, and if no size parameters are specified, then the infobox image would display at 460px (400*1.14, rounded to nearest 10).
  • The proposed code in the sandbox follows WP:IMAGESIZE and MOS:IMAGESIZE. It defaults to using |upright=1.14 for the image and the image map, following the MOS. If an editor has a very good reason (quoting WP:IMAGESIZE), then they can override the |upright=1.14 default (with a fixed size). This override is also available under the usual image syntax
  • Infoboxes sometimes provide situations where there is a good reason to override user-adaptive image sizes with fixed sizes. For example, the pushpin map must have a fixed size, so having a very large image would leave unsightly white space in the infobox. I think we should leave an "escape hatch" in this (and other) infoboxes, so editors can specify a fixed width in these cases (subject, of course, to consensus at the article in question).

— hike395 (talk) 03:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hike395, thanks for the detailed clarification. Your changes sound like they would allow for the best possible display of infobox images and would provide a good solution to Ɱ's desire to prevent infobox images from becoming too large. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I copied the sandbox to the live template. If anyone sees any issues, we can revert and discuss further. — hike395 (talk) 05:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 15 May 2023 see also

Description of suggested change: "See also" section Should link to Template:Infobox historic building as they are very similar. It could also maybe link to more specific infoboxes like Template:Infobox concentration camp.

Diff:

−
ORIGINAL_TEXT
+
CHANGED_TEXT

UnkreativeFrog (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. The documentation is not protected. If you add a link, please link directly to {{Infobox building}} rather than to the redirect. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why param 6s are not working

I recently added all the parameters to support a sixth designation. But they are not appearing on pages. See for example Statue of Liberty. Does anyone have any ideas? Ergo Sum 19:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_historic_site&oldid=1166315018"