Template talk:Infobox software/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Alignment of the website link text [was: Alignment of... URL]

With Mozilla Firefox 1.5 the website URL seems always to be rendered without right-alignment (I don't know about other browsers). This does not happen, for instance, with operating system infoboxes. Is it a problem with the Mediawiki software? Gennaro Prota 19:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The code's slightly different here in order to accommodate really long URLs. I'm changing it to simple centering. æle ✆ 22:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... why? You can always put a short text (the "title" of the link) in the box, even if the *target* of the link itself has a long URL. --Gennaro Prota 12:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Gennaro Prota, a website shouldn't be referenced only using its URL. The parameter name is "website", not "url". For example to reference the Wikipedia website you don't write http://en.wikipedia.org but Wikipedia. --Goa103 01:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Template design

Apparently Ed g2s changed this template so that the image and its caption are seperated. I've reverted that. IMO, image and its caption/title should stay together, as seems from the Wiki image tag: [Image:example.png|some|features|This is an example]. That seems more sematically correct. Any idea? Also, I was trying to follow the style of other templates, like Template:Infobox Company. --minghong 20:21, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The image syntax nests an image-styled box in the already styled infobox. It also introduces an ugly white border. Almost all infoboxes don't nest image syntax images for this reason. ed g2s • talk 22:19, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why, but User:82.38.178.65 keeps removing screenshot and caption in this template. I've restored the template. --Minghong 07:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Random notes

The template looks good, just comparing it to some other templates:

• We usually have the template name in the title, like putting Software on the first line in this case
• Do we normally use borders on the table (i.e. between cells)
• Wider than other templates - can we put a pixel size into the image?
• A background colour? Either for the title, or the whole table
• Pluralisation - are we okay for multi-licensed programs running on multiple operating systems with this template?
• It might also be worth thinking about whether the "License" field is sufficient, or whether we ought to think about "Freeware/Free Software/Shareware/Proprietary" types of categories.
• Do we put the "linking" square brackets into the template, or the pages? i.e. is it [[{{{License}}}]] so that it becomes less text on the pages calling the template?

Ojw 20:01, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I changed the margin from 2px to 0.4em. 2px is definately too small. --Minghong 07:51, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can we put just the image filename in each page, then use the template to turn that into an image tag? Would give easier control of how the images are displayed. Ojw 12:44, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Probably not. While the size specified in the template may look good in 4:3 or 3:2, but it can look bad on other ratios, e.g Gaim. --Minghong 16:17, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We'd specify just the width, same as with all Wikipedia images. At the moment, each bit of software has it's own "image, width=250" on one, "image, width=400" on another, etc. which could be put in the template. It also means we can't try things like image-borders without editing every software page. Ojw 19:51, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, but what about software that doesn't have screenshot? Anyway, if you're going to make this change, make sure all these pages are updated as well... --Minghong 10:11, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Developer for open source projects?

What should the "developer" row be for open source projects developed by a large number of individuals? Even projects with an organization behind them get patches from developers who aren't affiliated with their organization, so just putting down something like "Free Software Foundation" doesn't seem quite right. I've been using things like "gedit developers" when I use this infobox, but I want to know what others think. Eurleif 02:50, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"The community"? Ojw 13:20, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't you just put "open source, lacking a specific organization that would fit under 'developer'? Phoenix-forgotten 23:54, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

I think the "developer" parameter should only be used if an official name is known. PostgreSQL developers go under the "PostgreSQL Global Development Group" name for example. --Goa103 01:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Program Icon + First Release

Can we add the program's icon to the template, maybe at the bottom? I think that is a very appropriate thing to add to basic information about a software program.

For program Icon I would like to see the 16, 32 128 pixel versions. ~ Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:15, 2005 August 24 (UTC)

Also, the first release of the software would be a nice thing to have. I don't know what the policy is for changing templates that already exist, but it can't be too hard. --Ctachme 23:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The multiple pixel versions are overkill I think. I've added a "logo" parameter that the individual software packages can use as appropriate. --Doradus 17:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

<caption>

Changed to use <caption>, as used by Template:Radio station, Template:Infobox Country etc. -- Marknew 11:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Outsourcing of latest release version/date

see Template talk:Infobox Software2

Currently, because of every "latest software release version change" the whole article has to be changed. If we would make templates (Template:Latest_stable_release/Mozilla_Firefox) and link them like "| {{Latest_stable_release/{{PAGENAME}}}}" in this infobox, the articles aren't edited that often and by "Related changes" there would be a list of new software releases of the last xy days,... Furthermore we wouldn't have to change it in the infobox and the article itself and additionaly on pages like Comparison of web browsers. We just have to place "{{Latest_stable_release/xySoftware}}". So we could do three things with one edit! --84.156.100.195 16:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Shall I make an example?

This sounds good to me... Make sure you explain it on the Talk pages of the templates, so people arn't confused by it. When you make them, drop me a note on my talk page, and I'll put them on my watchlist. Thanks! JesseW 20:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I decided to be bold, and just do it. I've made {{Infobox Software2}} which implements the proposal you suggested, and created {Latest_release_version/Mozilla Firefox} as a demo case. In a week or so, baring any objections, I'll apply this to lots of other ones, too. What do people think of all of this... JesseW 22:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

When I tried to apply it to Comparison of web browsers, I found that, yes, it is needed to divide date and version, so I also created {Latest_release_date/Mozilla Firefox}. JesseW 22:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, 84.156, I see that you have edited the templates to put the date in the version template, and edited Comparison to make it work. While that it better, because it means that less things to edit, it requires that the other ones in the table be changed to that format too. I've done that. It also makes the Infobox_Software2 look slightly different than Infobox_Software, which may not be so good, although I hardly think it matters much. It also makes the date template unnecessary, so I'll go ask for it to be speedy deleted. BTW, please use edit summaries when making changes. It makes it much easier for people to tell what's going on. Thanks for your idea, it is a good one! JesseW 00:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Done :-)

Concerning summary: I used <noinclude> like you! I didn't know this feature, it's cool! But you have to take care of line breaks.

Now there are the following templates:

• {{LSR}} and {{LPR}} (should they be protected when everything is accepted?)
  • {{Latest stable release/Mozilla Firefox}} and {{Latest preview release/Mozilla Firefox}}
    • {{Infobox Software2}}

Now we can have all advantages mentioned above :-) --- 84.156.72.192 01:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

BTW: The design of the date (small and in brackets) is just a proposal to look good in 1. the infobox, 2. the article, 3. the comparison page.

This would be the Syntax for the pages "Template:Latest..../XYsoftware" (LSR):

{{LSR|
 article = 
|latest_release_version = 
|latest_release_date = 
}}<noinclude>


➔ Back to article "'''[[]]'''"
</noinclude>

or (LPR):

{{LPR|
 article = 
|latest_release_version = 
|latest_release_date = 
}}<noinclude>


➔ Back to article "'''[[]]'''"
</noinclude>

Please copy this syntax exactly!

You also can use {{subst:LSR/syntax}}, respectively {{subst:LPR/syntax}}.

The templates "Template:Latest..../XYsoftware" are sorted alphabetically on Special:Allpages/Template:Latest, so we easily can create a list on, let's say, "Template:Infobox_Software2/updates" and can have a list of the latest software releases when using "Related changes". This helps keeping our software articles up-to-date, especially if other language wikipedias will join. --- Greetings, 84.156.72.192 02:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I like it. I think I'll wait a few more days, then implement this on all the other Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Infobox_Software pages. JesseW 18:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, I made a template for the preview versions, too! I think it is very interesting to see where the developers are working on, and which really new version someone could try. I have chosen the word "preview", because there is a little difference between "unstable" and "testing" (see Debian Linux packages for example!). Admittedly someone could confuse this with a version like 1.0pre2 (or has that been the testing version of Firefox at that time (winter 2004)??).

Shall we also write "Back to "Comparison of web browsers"" on Templ:Latest.../Mozilla? I think that's not necessary. Most people come from the article itself, i would say. In the articles we could use a standard phrase like "The latest stable release of Firefox is {{Latest stable release/Mozilla Firefox}}. The latest testing/(unstable) release of Firefox is {{Latest preview release/Mozilla Firefox}}." --- Now Melancholie 19:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

As a proof of concept, I have implemented this in OpenOffice.org, too (two pre-versions). --- Melancholie 22:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The only problem is that if I know nothing about such template, I can't update the information! From the article that uses such template, I can see no parameter about version number/date. There are no link to the sub-templates as well. --minghong 15:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes you can! In a very simple and beneficial way: just click on the version number (see discussion above). But probably it is better to include a HTML comment near the infobox template, too (at least for the beginning). For those who are accustomed to the old way of doing it (sometimes in three articles↑ ;-) --Melancholie 18:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I see! I should have read the length discussin above. Sorry. :-P --minghong 23:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Would "Development release:" or "Preliminary release" be better than "Preview release:"? --Melancholie 02:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Definitely, for open source - David Gerard 10:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

What's so bad about having to modify the article? This thing is completely useless. All it does is confuse people. a thing 07:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was wondering the same thing myself. This is supposed to be a wiki that anyone can edit, but it won't be if we obscure simple things this way. --Doradus 10:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree. This template is confusing and introduces more problems than it solves. Can we please remove this template? --Steven Fisher 19:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Guys, I had an issue, First have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Latest_stable_release/Trac&action=edit&preload=Template:LSR/syntax specifically the hyperlink Changelog Notes. I wanted to keep it short like Changelog but it screwed up stuff. This seems to be a bug when I do it just as changelog. Can somebody do something so one can see Changelog & doesn't get screwed stuff up in the Trac Infobox [[User:Shirishag75|Shirishag75]] (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't also work on Abiword. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiword & the 2 templates I made, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Latest_stable_release/abiword as well as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Latest_preview_release/abiword and see where I've gone wrong :( [[User:Shirishag75|Shirishag75]] (talk) 06:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Terminology Issues

This infobox is very incorrect in the usage of the term developer if applied to open source software -- and in some cases incorrect to closed-source as well. This would imply that the developer is the maintainer when that is not necessarily true especially when companies and/or their products are bought out by other companies. A maintainer can be a developer but a developer is not a maintainer. Either the title should be changed to something more fitting or have a separate entry for the project maintainer. I suppose another implication is that the developer is the programmer of the software, which may or may not be true. A fine example is a solid majority of games developed by Microsoft Game Studios especially the Age of Empires series. Even though this example applies to games it just as easily applies to application software that may eventually change hands so many times that it may not be worth mentioning every single name and simply the latest one -- hence the use of a title such as maintainer that is also currently used open-source software far more than developer. Additionally usage of the (s) at the end of the title more easily supports entries of more then one since there is no code method that allows the s to be added when more then one entry is in the infobox. If I need to clarify anything in this let me know. -- Quadra23 18:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I think "maintainer" was intended and should be used, that's true. A software can be made by hundreds or even thousands of developers, so "maintainer" seems to be the better word for me, too! --Melancholie 19:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it depends on what's significant. "Maintainer" and "developer" are two different things, and should probably be treated separately. For example, SysV UNIX was developed by Bell Labs, but its current maintainer is SCO (and its owner is Novell, depending on who you ask). Dwayne 06:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

What about the word "Producer"?

If the definition in game producer is correct "company/person in charge of overseeing the development of software" would mean that the word "producer" is a generic term for 'developer' and also for 'maintainer' as he fixes and further develops a software, wouldn't it? And in those rare cases when a software is owned by a different company/person this could even be placed as a comment behind (in brackets e.g.) --- Best regards, Melancholie 01:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Please explain how the word producer differs in any way from my original comment on developer and how that more accurately covers the range of development styles used in software development. When software can be sold, contracted or forwarded to another company the word developer (and producer) loses it's meaning since anyone along the chain of the product's history could claim that title. Maintainer is more appropriate because it readily says who's in control of the software at the time and that they are responsible for it (obviously depending on what the license or EULA says in that regard). For example, I could easily say Rasmus Lerdorf developed PHP but how could I say he's the only entity that maintains PHP?! Quadra23 September 5, 2005.

I'm confused: a maintainer in the OSS world is still a developer because they must edit code - it would be accurate to still call it developer. I have changed this to Software company/Software developer as this is more accurate. I think we may need to split this into an OSS infobox and a closed source infobox. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Whatever happened to the word "programmer". It was a perfectly cromulent word, but people seem desperate to use euphemisms these days. --Doradus 17:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about the rest of you, but I think such names are too "simplistic" -- why? Because the name is too narrow to apply to the broad range of software situations that occur. For example, if a company buys out another and gets rid of the original name they themselves will not be the "programmers" but simply those who maintain the software right now (otherwise we would need to keep track of every single time a piece of software changes hands). Incidentally, the name maintainer also applies perfectly to open-source software and is already used commonly. Also consider that in open-source software there are more then the original group "programming/developing the software" -- using such a name really confuses what to put in the box (the original group and every single other developer, or "Developer Community"). I don't see any reason to maintain two different infoboxes for closed-source and open-source when both would basically function the same. See also my comment about PHP earlier in this discussion. Quadra23 17:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

We *did* need two boxes because a few Opera fans vehemently objected to the contents of the "license" field. A license entry really doesn't make a lot of sense on a proprietary software article. Free software, on the other hand, is very often defined by its license making its presence in an infobox important. So we had an awkard situation -- the proposed solutions for having "optional" parameters just didn't work in all browsers, so we were left with needing a new infobox. I've just tried out the latest "logo" optional parameter solution and it seems to work in the browsers that had problems with past attempts (dillo and lynx for example). So perhaps we can now make the license field optional and get rid of Infobox Propreitary Software at last. - Motor (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I've just tried it and unfortunately, the license field still shows up in dillo and lynx. So no go. If we still want an optional license field it's another template. - Motor (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Infobox_Software_(lite)

There are very many articles about pretty unknown or unpopular software (this does not mean those software and thus those articles would be irrelevant for WP, they often are!). Especially if those software is updated very often the article is out-of-date all the time. For this case I suggest a template without a mention of the latest release version. But for popular, pretty famous and rather seldom updated software like Firefox, AbiWord, Dillo, and so on the infobox with the release version is something essential, I think! --- Melancholie 19:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I see no problem with this idea since it would take up less room being wasted since the product may not be being developed, or may not have many releases since it is 'done' (I know of some open source projects that are 'done' such as ZSNES which has an update every few years if needed).

Is there away to do this dynamically though, I forsee an explosion in templates if mulitple versions are used in different circumstances.--ShaunMacPherson 05:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, in ZSNES I would keep the 'latest release' section! Only if the article would be out-of-date all the time, due to a lack of editors who are updating this or those article, I would use the suggested template. So I would place sentences like "Is the article in which this infobox is going to be included probably very often, or even at almost no time, up-to-date because of the 'release version' section? Then please use Template:Infobox Software (lite)!" --- Best regards, Melancholie 00:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

This is not necessary anymore, since those rows are optional by wiki code. -- 84.156.61.147 07:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Revised version available

I don't think it's acceptable to have a "revised version is available" message scribbled across this template. The new version is not an improvement in my opinion... it's an example of using abusing wiki template features to solve a non-existant problem -- it makes things more complicated for newbies for no real gain. I'm going to continue using this orginal template... and polluting it with messages about revised versions is unacceptable. - Motor (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Expand the license section?

At Talk:Opera (browser) there is some discussion as to what the License field in this infobox should say. In this specific incident, the software is free (gratis) but not free (libre). Technically the license should read proprietary software, but that's slightly less informative, and even misleading, compared to freeware. Would it be appropriate to include sections for both the license and the cost in this infobox? KeithD (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I think a "cost" field would be a very bad idea. We'd end up with people tracking the price of different pieces of software, hardly an appropriate function of Wikipedia. Opera's license entry really *should* be proprietary software -- I don't see how that's misleading -- but the introduction section of the article should mention that it is available for free download.

On the other hand, someone edited the template here saying that the release date was now optional. Perhaps there is a way to make the license field optional -- since it does not seem all that appropriate for non-open source/free software. I mean, "Propreitary EULA" is not very informative in Internet Explorer... such information would be better dealt with in the article copy. - Motor (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

What about adding an attribute called "Free download", which is true or false? Afterall, people are looking for free stuffs... --minghong

"Free download" would be redundant on an FOSS article. I'm starting to think that a unified infobox for software is a bad idea. As I mentioned yesterday, I don't think the license field for proprietary stuff is really appropriate. "BSD-style", "GPL", "MPL" etc etc are important when used in an FOSS article, but they add nothing to an infobox for software like Opera/IE/MS Office/MS Windows etc etc. We can't have optional params, so it looks like we need a new template. Comments? - Motor (talk) 09:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

So two separate templates? A template for open-source software, and a template for proprietary software?

They'd be largely identical, but those parameters which would ideally be optional in a single template, would be different. I'm not sure how templates work. Can you have templates within templates? If so, the License field in the overall template could be replaced with the sub-template for the two different types.

I take your point about tracking the specific cost not being right for Wikipedia, but something specifying freeware, shareware or pay (although not specifying the cost) should be part of the proprietary software template. I'm not sure how best to phrase that though. KeithD (talk) 10:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

That was the idea, yes. I should have made that clear. - Motor (talk) 11:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

There would certainly be lots of similarities... and I can imagine some interesting discussions about which box is appropriate for which software. We'd need ground rules for using the FOSS info box, such as "Must be a license recognised by the OSI" at least. As for the sub-template suggestion: I don't think so (addition: however, templates are complicated enough for newbies... I'd avoid adding another level to them), but I'll leave that for others because I'm no expert on what's been implemented in mediawiki. I suggest being bold about it... let's just create an infobox for proprietary software. First things first: the name. Infobox_PropSoftware? - Motor (talk) 11:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

(I've moved your replies to the end of my reply, rather than in between. It's easier to see who said what. I hope you don't mind). I would imagine that for the name, it shouldn't have abbreviations. It should probably be Infobox Proprietary Software. Presumably we'll leave the standard Infobox Software template as it is, and then the other templates will be used when that one isn't appropriate? I suppose that then gives you the option to create a dual-licensed template if need be. Obviously the templates should all be as broad as possible, until such a point as an additional template is necessary. (I've next to no experience with creating and maintaining templates here. I'll certainly help out where I can, but I may just be following and watching more than doing anything practical. If you go ahead and be bold, and create the template how you feel it should be, and then we'll go from there). KeithD (talk) 12:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

But what about dual-licensed (proprietary + free) software like MySQL, Qt, etc? If this template is to be splited, which one should they use? --minghong 12:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

If the entire package is free/open source, then the FOSS one... the article copy would address the issue of dual licensing etc. If the entire package is a mix (some BSD, some commercial proprietary for example... eg. Mac OSX), then the non-FOSS one with the article detailing which bits are which? - Motor (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's back to the basic, what the infobox should be:

• For general users, it should tell me the cost of using it (license fee).
• For developers/contributors, it should tell how it is distributed and how they can contribute/redistribute.

Anything did I miss? --minghong 16:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, Infoboxes exists to deliver only the most basic information at-a-glance and in a reasonably standardised format across a number of articles. Anything remotely complicated is better off in the article's copy. License fee is, IMO, not appropriate even though it is a simple attribute for reasons I've listed before. I've gone ahead and added a version of the "proprietary software" infobox to the Opera article... we'll see what happens. We may end up adding "Free download Y/N" parameter to the template. - Motor (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Template created. See its talk page. Let's see where it goes from here. - Motor (talk) 10:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Regrettably the license field hiding just isn't working reliably across different browsers. At the moment I don't believe there is a method for doing it... there are discussions about extending template syntax here, but that's all. So we are still stuck with a different template. - Motor (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Logos should be in the infobox

I edited this template and the Inkscape page to put the logo inside the infobox. I think that's a more appropriate place for logos. I didn't realize that there were already many dozens of pages that put the product logo next to the into paragraph. I intend to start moving them all to the infobox unless anyone has objections. --Doradus 17:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Optional fields

Just to make it clear here... there does not seem to be a reliable way to make fields optional across all browsers -- including non-CSS ones like dillo and lynx. If anyone knows of a way of doing it (like some kind of extension added to the wiki software recently), please speak up. - Motor (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

What's the problem? Doesn't {{{parm|}}} work? --Doradus 03:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I know what you mean. The "logo" parameter will work because it's not trying to hide any other table structure, but the others may not work. --Doradus 03:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)