This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Infobox. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Post-script: it transpires that the use of the 'Replace this image' file is no longer encouraged on new articles.
It's not deemed important to remove it from old ones, but usage of the 'image requested' type of parameter (in the Project boxes on the talk page) is preferred. Trafford09 (talk) 19:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Considering the discussion at United Kingdom, I think it's time we considering eliminating 'name' from the top of the infobox. Afterall, article title & opening intro already handle an article topic's name. GoodDay (talk) 09:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Please don't bring the battle at that talk page here. Just because you're not finding consensus for your version at the UK talk page, does not mean the template itself should be changed. That is not a site-wide problem, and certainly is not an issue with anything but a handful of other articles. (That said, I agree with the issue raised there...this is, after all, the English Wikipedia.) — Huntster (t@c)10:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Disable display of empty infobox on infobox template pages
I've noticed with browsers other than firefox that on Template:Infobox and on the templates created using Template:Infobox a small white rectangle appears before the documentation section. This rectangle is what appears when the infobox is generated on the template page with no parameters set. I recently created a handy code which allows for the removal of this annoying rectangle without requiring parameters to be set on every page the template is used on. It would be used on Template:Infobox as seen below:
The only thing that would have to be done beyond adding this code to Template:Infobox is adding the code | c = 1 on documentation subpages which have an example infobox. And that's my proposal. For anyone who wants to know what the code does who doesn't know parsers well:
If the parameter {{{c}}} has the value 1 the template will be displayed. If it does not have the value 1 the template will not be displayed. 1 is set to be the default value of the parameter {{{c}}} when {{PAGENAME}} is not Template:Infobox. This can be overridden by setting c = 1 on any page the template is used on that is later displayed on Template:Infobox.
Which template would you put the <includeonly> tags on? I don't see how that could repair the problem. Why does the rectangle annoy me so much? Well, it's not supposed to be there and it's clutter. Why does anything annoy anyone here on wikipedia? The point is that this can remove the "rectangle" so as to improve certain pages. You don't think it's necessary? It's not blatant on enough pages for you? Well there's about 500 infobox pages this error is present on. Wikipedia must always strive for perfection in every respect, for as soon as it doesn't it will cease to be the amazing encyclopedia it is. Matortheeternal (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
From my view it is not an error. On template pages we should strive to show, as much as possible, the actual output of the template. An infobox without any parameters does display an empty rectangle, so this is correct. However a better approach is to show all possible parameters, for example see Template:Infobox architect. This is the most useful display because you can see what the template does without even needing to look at the documentation. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, I do agree that one should provide a sample output of the template with the parameters in the form {{{parameter}}}. I support that and have done it myself on the pages that I have used this code. However, one cannot display all the parameters in such a format using the original code of the template without making all of the fields required rather than optional, which is not good as it would lead to the display of all empty parameter fields. Thus we create documentation subpages with the sample of the infobox and then insert the documentation subpages onto the main template page. However, even when you do this and create a sample infobox the "empty rectangle" will still appear on the template page. Thus the "empty rectangle" should be removed via the code I have posted above and a sample infobox should be added in its place (on pages where such a sample infobox is applicable). If what I said has not been entirely clear please view Template:Infobox_film or another similar infobox child page to see that the empty rectangle still appears along with the proper sample infobox. I am suggesting the removal of the empty rectangle while keeping the sample infobox per an overridable parameter. While I'm making this post I'll also point out that the code I gave above will not be enough to fix every infobox page as they each have a different {{PAGENAME}}. Thus the code will have to be changed to: {{#ifeq: {{{c|{{#ifeq: {{PAGENAME}} | {{{infoboxname|Template:Infobox}}} | | 1 }} }}} | 1 | ... page contents excluding the noinclude section ... | }} Which would then require the additional variable "{{{infoboxname}}}" to be set on template children of Template:Infobox with | infoboxname = Template:Blah Blah Blah Infobox because Template:Infobox is a Metatemplate. Matortheeternal (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The complexity of your "solution" is out of all proportion to the severity of the "problem" that it fixes. I would be interested in improving the look of the template page and have thought about this myself before. But this suggestion, which would involve changing every infobox template, is not worth it just to hide a rectangle. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
@WOSlinker: Oh... I never knew that. Lulz. Way to create a bunch of parser code for nothing huh? I feel like a fool, maybe because I am one.
Just watchout if there are already includeonly tagsa in the template. If there are then remove those tags (but not what is wrapped within the tags) and then you can add the includeonly tags at the top and bottom of the template. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Currently, in articles such as Forever Knight, a fair use image is used, and is captioned. Specifically,
{{Infobox television
| image = [[:File:Forever Knight.png|220px]]<!--Non free file removed by DASHBot-->
| caption = intertitle
| name = Forever Knight
| genre = [[Supernatural drama]]<br>[[Police procedural]]
}}
However, when Wikipedia content is re-used (in mirrors, or in things like Wikipedia books), there is no way to check whether or not a string of text is related to fair use, other than manual inspection. So what is rendered (by projects which follow licenses and don't reproduce non-free content) is a caption, without its image.
May 5, 1992 (1992-05-05) – May 17, 1996 (1996-05-17)
So could we introduce a new parameter in the infobox (|fair-use-image=yes) which would wrap the caption in a <span class="noprint-fair-use"></span>? If this parameter is introduced, then bots can easily take care of everything else, and all free projects will greatly benefit from it. I'd make the edit protected request, but I figure some prior discussion wouldn't hurt. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books}12:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Just a quick query here, but Hammersoft made an edit saying that NFC can't be used in templates. I agree that it can't be used in nav boxes, but surely it can be placed in the infobox on the subject article. I've edited the sample using a placeholder. I'm agreeing though with the general proposal though. Imzadi1979→23:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Hammersoft is wrong.
How practical is this proposal? Will it not mean having to add the parameter to every article using a non-free image in the infobox? That seems like a lot of effort for something that would only benefit external projects. PC78 (talk) 11:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
It would actually require very little effort. The only thing requiring editors' time is the initial updating of the infobox template, plus an hour or so of a bot coder's time. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books}18:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I'm quite correct. The non-free image File:Forever Knight.png was being displayed on this talk page. You will note on the image description page that the image remains copyrighted, and is used here on Wikipedia under terms of fair use. I removed it, noting the policy that forbids the use of non-free images outside of actual encyclopedia articles. That policy is WP:NFCC #9. You can not display non-free images on templates or template talk pages. A template on an article talk page can invoke a non-free image, but the template itself can not display the image. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I was commenting in reference to what Imzadi said. You are of course correct in removing the image from this page. PC78 (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
We could achieve the same thing in a more general way by coding the template to suppress the |caption= parameter in any case where the |image= parameter is either blank or invalid; this would also cover cases where we remove material without updating infoboxes (far from unknown) or where a mirror carries no images at all, even free ones. Shimgray | talk | 22:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Captions are already dependent on the |image= parameter being used, AFAIK. Can the template detect whether or not a file exists? PC78 (talk) 02:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Discussion revival
I originally thought PC78's explanation/argument pretty much settled things. However, after fiddling with some things recently, it dawned on me that things don't work like that at all.
As the result depends on whether File:Test.jpg exists or not. However, that is not how this is implemented in infoboxes. In infoboxes, you often have something like
This result depends on whether the string "File:Test.jpg" exists or not (and obviously, it exists, and always will exist, regardless of whether File:Test.jpg exists). This cannot be detected without advanced parsing logic.
Even worse, you often have something that couldn't be detected even by advanced parsers, like
Is there a good reason to keep cellspacing="5" as a table attribute? I note that {{Infobox settlement}}, for example, does not use this. One consequence is that the horizontal lines that separate sections do not have gaps to the outer box border or between the header and data columns with that template, whereas they do when rendered with this template. One example is Northeast India. — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 20:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree that this should at least be optional. A related question is if there is a CSS equivalent to this parameter, in which case, it could be moved to MediaWiki:Common.css. By the way, as far as I can tell, this is actually a browser dependent issue, so just testing in Firefox or Internet Explorer or Safari is not enough. Thanks for bringing this up here. Plastikspork―Œ(talk)21:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
There is no adequate CSS equivalent for cellspacing, that is why it is still in such widespread use (usually with value 0). The CSS attribute border-spacing is badly supported accross browsers, so usually the individual cells get a margin instead. — Edokter (talk) — 22:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
So should we add an optional parameter, which is a simple change: cellspacing="{{{cellspacing|5}}}"? Actually, per Plastikspork's observation about browser differences, perhaps 0 is a better default anyway. — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 02:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
There is a gap between the border and the cells (the 1px table padding plus the browser default 2px cellspacing), that is intentional to mirror the same layout as {{navbox}}. — Edokter (talk) — 01:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
So how will we override that to zero? I want the infobox in Summer Olympic Games to look like the one in Northeast India, where the horozontal lines that separate each subsection have no gaps at the outer box border. In the Northeast India example, that is achieved by using bodyclass = geography because there is CSS styling for infobox geography to produce those borders. I can't really use the "geography" class on the Olympic box. — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 01:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
(←) If you don't want to use the .geography class, the only way to achieve that is to use the CSS via parameters:
And yet, it does. With these style statements added to the Summer Olympic Games infobox, there is still a noticable gap between the ends of the horizontal borders and the outermost box border. I am using IE8. — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 15:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
No, that didn't fix it, even after purging my browser cache. But it's not just that CSS that's the difference between infobox.geography and plain infobox. {{Infobox settlement}} does not specify any cellspacing. — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 16:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
That is because it uses the .geography class. That class uses border-collapse: collapse;, which nullifies any existing padding, then adds padding to all the cells. Did you also try purging the page itself? — Edokter (talk) — 17:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I meant if you clicked the Purge tab/link on top of the page, which purges the server's cache. But since you saw the extra lines, that could not be it. Still very weird that you still saw the gaps. — Edokter (talk) — 00:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Alt text?
The WP:ALT page mentions that this template has provision for alternative text for images. Can someone please enlighten me which parameter to use? AshLin (talk) 03:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I see what you mean, instead of giving just an image name as parameter with "image=", we can give wikitext like this: [[File:Forever Knight.png|220px|alt=Words "Forever Knight" superimposed on an urban sunrise.]].
I have a table following a settlement infobox without enough introductory text to ensure that the two don't interfere. Instead my table locates itself to the left of the infobox.
Now I'm trying to add more columns to my table and I'm getting unwanted word-wrapping inside because there isn't enough page width remaining to the left of the infobox. I want to move the table down so it has the full page width without interference from the infobox. I suppose I could brute-force pad it, but that seems inelegant and as preliminary text gets added, contributors might not understand how to reduce the padding. So is there a better way to tell the table to locate itself below the infobox? LADave (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
This template has the "v, d, e" buttons at the bottom. The edit button allows to edit the template code instead of the content, which is what most users aim at. Why not removing the "e" button?" Articles like 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami use a subtemplate of this template, with the same effects - the edit button leads to the template code, not the fields. Materialscientist (talk) 03:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree that you usually don't want this link, but there are some cases where the link would lead you to content, so it's there as an option. For this particular case, I removed the links with this edit. Thanks! Plastikspork―Œ(talk)04:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
It passes whatever is in the |name= field to {{navbar}}. Since navbar creates links to templates, rather than articles, this will always lead to a template. In the case of {{Infobox silver}}, it makes sense to direct the user to the template to edit. For more generic templates, it doesn't really make sense. It would be interesting to have edit links that lead you to the section containing the template in the earthquake article, but that would require some additional functionality, as far as I can tell (at least to make it a general feature). Plastikspork―Œ(talk)05:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Once we've got into this, I'll tell why I started this thread: consider 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. Many users keep updating the number of aftershocks in the infobox, which is tricky because the article is bulky (overloaded with templates). One solution could be to move the number into a subtemplate and transclude this subtemplate into the infobox, like {{subst:2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami casualties dead}}. This would reduce the load on the main article, but has its drawbacks - many editors can't understand how to get to the sub-template, transclusion is costly for parsing, reference overlap, etc.
Another solution would be to have an edit button under the infobox, which would lead to a dedicated subsection containing only the infobox of that article. Can this be implemented? Even if not easy, this might be convenient for various articles. Materialscientist (talk) 05:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Since infoboxes are normally transcluded in the lede section of articles, above almost all other content (hatnotes get placed above infoboxes, but little else does), this could be done by adding a link to edit section 0. I have no comment on what text should be displayed for any such link, or where it should be positioned in the infobox, though. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy100006:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
A) I couldn't understand it!!
B) It did not say ANYTHING UNDERDTANDABLE about how to add a picture!
image, image2
images to display at the top of the template. Use full image syntax, for example . Image is centered by default. See WP:ALT for more on alt text.
That does not make ANY sence. What is image syntax? And alt text?
You say all these complicated things but nothing basic! We. Do. Not. All. Speak. Tech.
NEWSFLASH: THE CODES DIDN'T WORK I tried them in the infobox (um did you forget it's a TEMPLATE!?) and it didn't work you idiots, I tried them on the actual page, THEY DIDN'T WORK.
THIS IS AFREAKING TEMPLATE!!!!!1 CODES DON'T WORK IN TEMPLATES!!!!!!!!!!!!
You might as well delte this page; it doesn't help!
You know what, you cna delete this rant. Cause I will post it again and again till someone gets off their high horse and answers me cause this wiki page DOESN'T HELP
The very beginning of the documentation states "It is not meant for use directly in an article,". So...are you sure you should be using it?--it really is a technical thing. Different actual intended-to-be-used-directly infoboxes each have their own image syntax and there is no consistency among them. Each one uses the different technical features and (hopefully!) those are documented and/or have examples. What is an example of a page where you are trying to insert an image?
If you don't know what something means, did you try clicking the blue link in the sentence to read about it? It says WP:ALT and you say you have no clue what that means, which is fine. But you can click on it to see exactly what it means. DMacks (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
This is a meta-template, designed to be used by other templates. For instance, articles on roads and highways use {{infobox road}}, but that template uses this one to generate its output. Very, very few articles would directly use {{infobox}}, almost none really. Imzadi 1979→00:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Your statement makes no sense. This template is used by other infoboxes to standardise their format. It is not meant to be used in an article by itself. Simple as that. — Huntster (t@c)21:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
If you want to know how to power your computer, you can just plug it into the wall. If you really want to know, you can read the manual for a nuclear power plant and it will answer the question "how do I power my computer", but that doesn't really help at the level at which most people are working. The nuke manual is aimed at the few who actually deal with power plants, and they then make the power available to you in a more user-friendly form with documentation aimed at you. Without the power plant, you have nothing, even if you do not need to understand how to use it directly. DMacks (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Headerclass
Can we add a |headerclass= to this template? Currently to add classes to each header, I have to do this. But, if we had a "headerclass", I could add it just once. Thanks! 107.4.30.154 (talk) 03:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Help
I know this is a talk page on this template, but I don't know where else to put my query...
See, I'm looking to use an infobox, but I'm having trouble. I need to use this info box on some pages, but I have more that I want to add as links in the infobox... Thing is these other pages are subpages with the exact same subpage name on several pages. To try to make this clear to you, Some of these pages don't need to show up in this infobox and they use a template, while others uses another template. I think I'd rather use this template as a source for this infobox to be able to include only those subpages via these other pages, but I don't know exactly how to do this. I've tried a few ways, but nothing seems to work... I know how to get the infobox to include subpages as links with {{{page}}}/Subpage , but I'd like to look for a certain template inside the subpage so it'd display or not (if it has that template or not). Any help is appreciated. 72.148.31.114 (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
A bit of redundant markup
In this bit of markup below, text-align:center; is redundant since it is specified in {{Infobox/row}}.
Quite right. In fact, using infobox/row in unnecessary; Above now uses the same code structure as Below, saving some code and a template call. — Edokter (talk) — 17:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't we be moving things the other way? I'd rather that this template used as little hand-cooked HTML as it can get away with. A couple of extra template calls is small fry in most transclusions of this template anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk18:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
This has now been deployed. After a quick fix for namespace detection, it seems to be filling up with appropriate entries: some are things like {{infobox person}} with no details filled in, while I've uncovered a bug in {{infobox building}} where an empty child infobox was being transcluded even if none of the fields within were being used. If anyone spots anything out of the ordinary (once the buildings hopefully clear themselves out of the category) then please let me know. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk19:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Standarization of paramter names for embedding
I've noticed that there are no consistent parameter names being used in infobox templates for embedding. I don't know where this should be discussed but this seems to be a good place to start. There are three templates that I know of that provide parameters for embedding.
This template uses the name child and I think that might encourage a standard. Perhaps a parameter could be added that could be used specifically to embed another template. Any thoughts are welcome. –droll[chat]00:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
religion ≠ Religious belief(s)
I noticed here[1] that the "religion=" parameter in the infobox template transcluded as "Religious belief(s)". That is probably more often incorrect than correct. Just because someone is born into a religion doesn't mean they "believe" everything in that religion, which it would imply. Even practicing a religion doesn't mean the person believes everything in it, unless they come out and say so. In the example I reverted, not only has that (BLP) subject declared that they "are not religious", but they drink wine and even write about wine, in extreme contradiction to the "belief(s)" of that religion. I imagine someone innocently added it because the subject was born into that religion. For the sake of simplicity, and so other editors don't innocently add the "religion=" parameter, can "religion" just mean.... "religion" when the infobox transcludes? I also couldn't even find where to change this. First Light (talk) 21:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Since this template is used to generate other, more specific infoboxes like {{infobox person}} or {{infobox road}}, I think you really need to direct your comments and concerns to the talk page of a specific infobox template. {{Infobox}} doesn't have a "religion=" parameter. Imzadi 1979→23:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
The absence of a "thumb"-classed container for Infobox images
I noticed that every thumbnail on Wikipedia is contained in a container with a "thumb" CSS class, except for the thumbnails in Infoboxes. Why is that so? I think that thumbnails in Infoboxes should have the "thumb" class too, because it is very useful for parsing (for use in October 2011 Coding Challenge's Slideshow challenge, for example). --Popoffka (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see now. Okay then, is $(".thumb .image, .infobox .image") a reliable method for detecting illustrations or are there any other exceptions? --Popoffka (talk) 17:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Edit request from , 16 November 2011
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change date of birth from Oct 28, 1835 to - Unknown. The birth date October 28 was first mentioned in September 1990, by Satya Sai Baba, who claimed to be a reincarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba, and based his knowledge of the birth date on "special" knowledge. Reputable biographers do not agree. Please see THE LIFE AND TEACHINGS OF SAI BABA OF SHIRDI by Antonio Rigopoulos, 1993, State University of New York. Page 26.
The neutrino page has an infobox, which shows an alignment issue that I believe finds its root cause in this template. See Template talk:SubatomicParticle#Weird formatting bug for the discusssion that lead to this conclusion. In short: all cells in an infobox have css top alignment, which means all elements inside the cell are aligned with their top to the top of the cell. This causes incorrect alignment of text in various elements if these elements have different heights, as is the case when you use sub/superscript.
Let me try to draw an example of this:
Here, "Text" and "More text" should be aligned, but are not. One way to fix this is to wrap everything in an inline element with bottom alignment; here's an example of that:
I'm hesitant to fix this, as I myself haven't the time to check if this works and doesn't break other layout expectations nor revert or fix any errors this may introduce. — SkyLined (talk)15:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy someone's noticed this problem. I completely lack the skills to do anything here, but I just wanted to express my appreciation for any efforts to be made towards fixing this. Leonxlin (talk) 04:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Not sure it can be fixed. No matter how you align the contents of a cell, if something has different height, it will always be misaligned. — Edokter (talk) — 10:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
You can override for all header rows (|headern=, where n is a number between 1 and 80), and/or all unlabelled data rows (|datan= with no corresponding |labeln=), but you can't easily override on specific rows except by using CSS classes.
Add either or both of |headerstyle=text-align:left; (which affects |headern=) and |datastyle=text-align:left; (which affects |datan= for rows without a corresponding |labeln=) - see example at right: the top one uses |headerstyle=text-align:left;, the bottom one uses |datastyle=text-align:left;
Styling for individual rows formed using |datan= (with or without |labeln=) may be achieved by means of either |classn= or |rowclassn=, and styling for individual rows formed using |headern= may be achieved by means of |classn=.
The main problem with the class parameters is that you need to find an existing CSS class which has been set up with the style that you want. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Infobox historic site
Earlier today I edited the sandbox of {{Infobox historic site}} to be compatible with this template. There are still a few minor kinks to work out, but it's getting there. I do have one question I can't figure out, however. Any idea why this is happening? The relevant parameters that are causing this parser error are |designation1_free1value= and |designation2_free1value=. Those parameters are passed through a child infobox, but other than that, I can see no reason they would trigger an error. It appears something is going wrong within the {{Convert}} template. Any help?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah ok I had never run into that problem before; I'll keep that in mind for the future. What still remains to be demonstrated, however, is why running convert through a child infobox triggered an error while just going through the regular infobox template (the |area= parameter higher up in the test case) did not trigger an error. Yes, adding the precision fixes the problem, but where is the actual error coming from? I'm sure that many articles on which this infobox is used do not specify a precision for the convert template, so they would all be broken.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
It's mainly to do with template expansion depth (see Wikipedia:Template limits and meta:Help:Expansion depth). Templates can use other templates, which in turn can use further templates, etc., but that can't go on for ever. In the case of {{convert|2100|acre|km2|1}} for example, I've not counted the total number of levels, but I find that the small change from {{convert|2100|acre|km2}} to {{convert|2100|acre|km2|1}} subtly amended one of the subtemplates which were used - specifically, from {{convert/round}} to {{convert/pround}}. These are very different inside, and if my calculations are correct, {{convert/round}} goes seventeen levels deeper than {{convert/pround}}. So, explicitly giving the precision saves 17 levels of template depth, which is a significant number compared to the maximum of 40. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Good lord! I figured it had something to do with depth, but I had no idea convert was that taxing. I guess that one extra include kicked it over the limit of 40. Looks like that's something we'll just have to deal with then.. or maybe try to fix convert. Thanks for the help!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Why is the font-style modifier failing here?
In the Template:Tuskegee Airmen box, the Films section is meant to be in italics.
It is not.
Syntactically, we have:
I see bgcolour = used within infoboxes to change the background around the header-labels. Is there an existing modifier for header text as well instead of having to use style/class code? — CobraWiki(jabber | stuff )02:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
After wondering for days, I run across the answer an hour after posting this question (go figure). The answer is colour text or color text. I had tested many variations trying to find this answer with no luck. This was because the answer is non-standard to others found in infoboxes. Along with it not reading forward like almost all other terms ("text color"... which I had tested previously) it also does not contain an underscore, and including one does not work. Shouldn't this be fixed, fitting into some form of WP:MOS? — CobraWiki(jabber | stuff )03:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Any use of text colour should satisfy at the very least MOS:COLOR and WP:COLOR. Varying the colour of text is therefore uncommon, and that is why no explicit colour styling is provided in {{infobox}}. Where did you get the impression that colour text or color text are valid? Neither of these exist in {{infobox}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
It was a reasoning error on my part. I was testing through {{infobox television}} thinking it more of an extension of {{infobox}} than working completely independently: "If they make a change to 'infobox' it will filter to the other infobox-style templates." The reasoning came from seeing the large number of templates that call other templates within. — CobraWiki(jabber | stuff )18:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I was already aware of the sub-page, but looking there it wasn't clear how the process used for making the manual color changes worked. In several ways, though MOS is appropriate to make pages more uniform, I see this particular case (television infoboxes, and I'm sure some others now) to be a bit subjective on what colors are most "correct" and therefore should not be limited to only a select few to decide if a change is appropriate. I nonetheless have no desire to waste energy attempting to protest. Thanks for the clarification. That was more helpful than an answer to my original question. — CobraWiki(jabber | stuff )22:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
