Template talk:Infobox historic site/Archive 1

Archive 1

More than 5 listings

Hi, Is this infobox able to support more than 5 listings? I'm currently working on Bathwick Hill, Bath which has approx 45 listed buildings - I've added to the designation section by adding subsequent numbers however these do not display. Any help appreciated.— Rod ^talk 09:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

No, this building can only handle 5 listings. The infobox is actually meant for articles about individual listed buildings (or other historical designations) and not for lists of them, so, though I like the way in which you've used this infobox, it cannot support more than five listed buildings per article.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

OK - although I'm told that where several listed buildings, which only have 1 line of text about them, in the same location/street should be grouped into the same article. I'll leave it with just a few in he infobox - the rest are in the references anyway.— Rod ^talk 17:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that listed buildings in the same general area that CAN be grouped SHOULD be grouped, but this infobox can't handle that many designations. I would suggest only putting the Grade I's in the infobox, and if there aren't 5 of those, go down to Grade II* etc. List the most important in the infobox. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

More than 1 image

Is it possible to add more than 1 image eg a photo & a floor plan? - see discussion at Talk:Montacute House#Infobox removal.— Rod ^talk 13:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Example date formats

Could someone check the use of the comma in the example date formats? Ammerdown House, Kilmersdon has just been edited to remove the comma citing Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) & I'm not expert enough on the MOS to decide whether the edit was appropriate.— Rod ^talk 14:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Native Names

I just worked up some code that could be helpful in the "Native name" section of the infobox. Found at User:Dudemanfellabra/Sandbox, the code allows a user to specify up to three different names in three different languages and will format them differently based on certain aspects. If only one language is included, like now, the output looks no different than what is currently in the infobox. If a language is identified in "native_language", the code uses the {{lang}} category of templates to show the name. If a second name is given with no language, it is shown in a regular list (e.g. "name1", "name2", "name3"), but if a second name and language is given, it shows the languages each on a new line. See User:Dudemanfellabra/Sandbox3 for examples of what I'm talking about. Is this ok to add in, or does anyone have objections? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 09:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No one objected; I added it in. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

template name

This template ought to be renamed to Template:Infobox historic site (currently a redirect) in order to follow the conventions used by other infoboxes. --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Various issues (designations, native names, maps)

I'll recently added (or tried to add) this template to Writing-on-Stone Provincial Park, Dinosaur Provincial Park, and Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump, Wood Buffalo National Park, adn Rideau Canal five UNESCO World Heritage sites in Canada which also designated by various levels of government in Canada and the ICUN. If you look at those pages, you will notice a few issues with them:

1. The "native-name" field doesn't seem to be able to handle the Blackfoot language, for some reason.
2. There is no way to add the fact that these are also either National Parks of Canada, Provincial parks, Provincial Historic Sites of Alberta, or Canadian Heritage Rivers without generating an error. Short of creating those a paramaters in the template, what can we do? Or should "parks" also be parameters here?
3. By switching these from the {{Infobox protected area}} I lost the map I prefered and ended up with a much uglier one. Also I lost the automatic categorization into ICUN cats.

Thanks. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 22:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Also, it should be National Historic Site of Canada, but the templates says Canadian National Historic Site which is not quite right. (fixed myself) --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 23:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The reason the Blackfoot language is not supported is because it does not have an ISO 639-1 counterpart, which this template uses. Adding support for it would be a little non-standard but could be done I suppose with a little magic.

As far as the other designations, this infobox can only handle them if they are supported by Template:Designation (which I see you've found/edited). To add designations to the template, see the documentation. I believe these designations may qualify, though I haven't looked into them in any detail.. Such fine details as callnames and color schemes would arise from a more detailed discussion there.

As for the maps, they are all centralized to Template:Location map, so raise that question there if you are displeased. The categorization could be handled by this template, but I think in general it is better to leave categorization up to the editor if possible, so if in the future more region-specific categories arise, it is easier to handle. A similar situation has come up with {{Infobox NRHP}} in the past dealing with Category:Historic districts in the United States. Though an auto-cat patch was added a while back that solved the problem, I don't think that fix will suffice in this infobox because of its wider scope.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

native language

I have modified the native language field to use langauge codes instead of full name. Beyond missing all the ISO 639-2 and ISO 639-3 codes in my testing it produced errors. For instance when I entered "German" in the native_language field, it produced a Danish language link. The issue appears to be that the ConvertAbbrev template employs a manual list.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid your edit broke a lot of infoboxes, just see how many articles link to {{Lang-Albanian}}. Could you fix that? Markussep ^Talk 21:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This is why we discuss edits to infoboxes before we implement them. Can you show some specific examples of errors you claim to have found?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Have already been working through the errors. As mentioned already. German comes up as Danish for one and it's not possible to use ISO 639-2 and ISO 639-3 language sets, an issue that was already brought up a month ago and went unaddressed.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the German issue. As for the ISO 639-2 and -3 sets, I'll begin working on adding support to Template:ConvertAbbrev. For now, though, I suggest you go back and undo all your recent contributions where you changed many articles to use your unilaterally declared consensus for an infobox that has over 600 transclusions. For templates such as these, it is always best to discuss these edits before you implement them. If you can hold off on this for a few days, hopefully I'll be able to solve the problem. It just takes time to create the massive tables like in the ISO 639-1 case.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it won't be too difficult to make the template accept both the ISO codes and the full language names. I guess a statement like {{#ifexist:template:lang-{{{native_language}}}|{{lang-{{{native_language}}}}}|{{lang-{{ConvertAbbrev|{{{native_language}}}}}}}}} would work. Markussep ^Talk 09:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yah, I don't think I am going to go about doing that (hint hnit: Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus"). I really didn't see this as a controversial edit, moreso a case of WP:BOLD. Given I was going to manually convert the language names to iso codes (and had already started doing so) there would have been no more than one day with an error. Given every other template uses iso codes it seemed like a WP:COMMONSENSE action. Nevertheless, we are discussing the issue so looks like WP:CYCLE works. So, I guess I shall propose that iso codes be used instead of language names and I'm prepared to make the manual corrections as necessary or that we employ Markussep's idea.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been bold too, and have implemented my idea. It seems to work fine with both full language names and ISO codes, let me know if you see an error. Markussep ^Talk 14:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Well done! A solution where everyone wins. I am doing an error search right now but I haven't found any yet.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, looks like a great solution, Markussep. I think, however, that I'm still going to keep going on adding -2 and -3 compatibility to {{ConvertAbbrev}}. As it is now, if the infobox can't find a lang-xxx template, it assumes the user typed a full name and tries to convert it. If, like in the example in the above section, someone simply types "Blackfoot," the infobox still won't display it correctly. I think this can be fixed by a chain of #ifexist calls as you've done (i.e. "lang-Blackfoot doesn't exist, so let's convert it. Ok, there's not a two letter language code for Blackfoot; let's try ISO -2. Well that spit out a code, but there's no lang template yet for it, so let's try -3. Ok, there's finally a lang template that works; use it.") This way, there will be not only one level of error catching but 3. This would make the template even more user friendly than your fix does. Thanks for your help, and I'll post back here when I've added compatibility.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I somewhat addressed the Blackfoot issue. The iso name for Blackfoot is Siksika. I have already created the {{ISO 639 name bla}}, {{lang-bla}} and {{Bla icon}} under the name Siksika, so no error appears now at Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but if the user doesn't know the ISO code ("bla"), he can't use the language. I would like for them to be able to simply type in "Blackfoot" and get it to work right. That's why I'm working on adding that support to ConvertAbbrev.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a good move and frankly a lot of templates would be better off if they incorporated both as an option. Keeping track of ISO codes is not simple, particularly when you start getting into native languages. I think what we have going on here is perfect.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

ISO 639-2

Support for ISO 639-2 codes (3-letter abbreviations and languages like "Blackfoot" or "bla" discussed above) has now been added to Template:ConvertAbbrev. I'll work on adding this support into this infobox now, with hopes of adding support for the much larger ISO 639-3 some time in the future.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Added visitation_ref parameter

I added a parameter to allow the tidy addition of a reference for the visitation number. I also added the word "in" before the visitation year. I wanted this template's output to agree with the output of {{Infobox protected area}} and {{Geobox}}. {{Infobox NRHP}} uses "in" but does not have a visitation_ref parameter yet.  –droll [chat] 02:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Red links

{{Request edit}} Hello i am from WP:Canada and it has been brought to my attention that the link in this template that link to National Historic Site of Canada is red. My request is to change the color of this link in the template for Canada to color #00006E. Reasoning behind this is - First we should never make a link red as per MoS styles on links (Wikipedia:Red link) - Secondly we at WP:Canada have decided long ago that #00006E is to be the colour used for national templates (see here for the last talk about the color. Now i am not sure if the red color comes from a different talk and general style that was picked, however the red link is not acceptable. If #00006E is not acceptable (as its being used already) we can talk about that - but the red should be fixed ASAP. I would do this myself but i cant find were to do so....An example of what i am talking about can be seen on the Infobox at Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump.Moxy (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I have updated the color, which is actually located in the {{Designation}} template.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you ...that was fast..However now i see from your Link a few others in red :-( ..Moxy (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You know, actually, I can't find anywhere that says links shouldn't be colored red. I can only find the fact that a redlink shouldn't be deleted if it's valid and other general link color information. In fact, Wikipedia:Link color shows someone how to change a link color but never mentions anything about coloring them red or blue or any other color. As such, I see no reason to change the well-developed system in use in this infobox. If you'd like to propose that links shouldn't be colored red artificially as a new policy, I guess you should do it there?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry my fault ... let me link to the policy Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Navigation templates - Red is the only default colour for logged-in users within Wikipedia, that means an article is not there and needs to be made. So we should not hide existing articles with red or black font - nor should we colour text to "Link blue" if there is no link/article. User functionality over aesthetics is what should be implemented here. We are here to help users find articles not make things colourful. Moxy (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I've brought this up at the project talk page. I directed people to comment here, but some may comment there. You may want to watch that page until the discussion concludes.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with using the color red, mind you, I'd avoid using the exact color used in nonexistant links, but WP:CLN is an "editing guideline" and "occasional exceptions may apply." Though I'd support using the style already in use in Canadian navigation template and use the blue links, iff the maple leaf icon is included as well. If this is going to become a problem with other countries' designations that use red text as well, I'd consider ditching the different designation colors and go with a more uniform header. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 21:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I have mentioned this at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Link colours see if we can get a definitive answer to this question.Moxy (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Colours

There is a proposal at Template talk:Designation about improving the appearance and accessibility of the the infobox by using coloured borders rather than coloured backgrounds/text. Please comment in the discussion if you have an opinion. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

coord_display parameter

The coord_display parameter doesn't work as documented. For instance, Kuadam uses the default, which is supposed to give both inline and title coordinates, but only gets inline coordinates. —Stepheng3 (talk) 06:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

More must be added

This infobox needs more stuff. First, how i can add that monument is under UNESCO WHS un danger, and then, more data is needed for monument explanation. --WhiteWriter^speaks 18:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The "#" symbol

The "#" symbol is still largely an Americanism in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. The local standard abbreviation for the word "number" is either "no." or "No.". — 94.72.222.108 (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I have replaced number sign with the numero sign. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Parks and Gardens for England

I've come across several articles recently which use this template, which should also include that they are included in the National Register of Historic Parks and Gardens for England. What is the best way of adding it (or requesting someone who understands the code to add it)? According to this list from English Heritage there are over 1,600 sites, divided into Grade I, II* & II (the same as listed buildings.— Rod ^talk 21:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It appears it does work (see Barrington Court which I'm working on at present, but doesn't allow the grade as far as I can see.— Rod ^talk 21:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, to make the bar show up in the infobox, simply type |designation1=National Register of Historic Parks and Gardens (or designation2, 3, etc.). To include the grade, you can use the |designation1_type= parameter (e.g. |designation1_type=Grade I). Alternatively, you can use the free parameters, |designation1_free1name=Grade and |designation1_free1value=I.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.— Rod ^talk 15:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

current residents

any objection to adding a parameter for current residents, after built for? Craigenputtock has this field, but is using a hack to wedge it into the infobox. Frietjes (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

infobox monastery

Another infobox that can be used in some situations. I posted up on WP:museums but maybe this is a better location. Obviously there are times when one works and the other doesn't, but there are also times where either will work and there lies the problem. A judgement call, a personal preference, a bit of chance is all that decided which infobox gets used in many situations. There needs to be some sort of discussion. I will copy this post over on to infobox monastery speednat (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox monument

I discovered recently {{Infobox monument}}, I noticed some serious overlap and I wonder if the two templates should be merged. Or at least clarify when one or the other. Thanks --Codrin.B (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Belatedly, please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 April 15#Template:Infobox monument.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of different map

Ashton Court

Shown within Bristol (above) and England.

I have been using this template for lots of buildings with the built in map function. Now on Ashton Court there is a debate about the map to use. It originally had the dedicated one (shown right), but this meant two separate boxes and it was suggested this was included in the infobox. I can't see how to do this and I have used both the Bristol and Somerset maps neither of which seem right. Any suggestions appreciated.— Rod ^talk 20:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

@Rodw: that article is using {{infobox historic building}}, not this one :) but I will provide a demo in the article to show you how you can hack in a second map, or we can discuss formally adding a parameter at template talk:infobox building. Frietjes (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I had assumed it was this one and may update it to include the listed building status.— Rod ^talk 07:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Coord

Eneabba Stone Arrangement
What is wrong with this, or me ? Coord, done. Coord_display, odd name but done. Output, nothing. Hmm... --Dave Rave (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

By "output nothing", I assume you mean you didn't get a map displayed. If so, the answer is you need to use the locmapin field to select a map on which the pin is displayed. I added one to Eneabba Stone Arrangement and now there is a map.Kerry (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The coordinates field seems to do nothing. Certainly I get no joy with

|coordinates = {{coord|display=inline,title|-35.28143|149.12921}}<ref>{{cite web|title=Queensland heritage register boundaries|url=https://data.qld.gov.au/dataset/queensland-heritage-register-boundaries|publisher=[[Queensland Government]]|accessdate=5 September 2014}}</ref>

and a look at the template code suggests the field is never used. I have managed to solve half the problem by using fields latitude, longitude, coord_parameters, coord_display fields which means the coordinates are displayed and the map appears. But the problem I cannot solve is the inclusion of the citation. Anything I do with it including as a notes component in the coord_parameters causes it to render strangely. Kerry (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Kerry Raymond: so we need a |coord_ref= or |coordinates_footnotes= parameter? Frietjes (talk) 00:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be simplest solution. Kerry (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, coordinates={{coord|...}}<ref> ... </ref> works fine with {{Infobox monument}}. See Canberra Centenary Column for example. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Kerry Raymond and Mitch Ames: now fixed. (1) I merged the duplicate coordinate fields, so you don't get double output if you try to use both dec and dms, (2) added |coord_ref= for adding a citation for the coordinates, (3) added |coordinates= if you want to use free-form coordinates, (4) added a tracking category to find articles which were using ambiguous coordinates (i.e., both dec and dms, or missing the lat_direction/long_direction with dms, ...). note that this fixes a bug due to a mismatch in the logic used for the coordinates and the location map at the foot of the box. I also added some more test cases to the testcases page. Frietjes (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion

May be of interest, I felt that a merge to this infobox might be a good idea, so figured I'd better ping folks here. Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_27#Template:Infobox_PAhistoric Montanabw^(talk) 20:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

New type parameter

@Dudemanfellabra: I think the new type parameter is meant to be used for providing a very brief description, where it's not immediately apparent what the site actually is. This is different to the registers' type classification. Alakzi (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Visitation - wrong word

This word seems to be misused in this template to indicate the number of visitors / tourists et.c. Please review this at any dictionary, e.g. [1]. It should be used only for formal, scheduled and similar visits and it is not a common English word used for the act of visiting an attraction. I suggest that it be replaced with 'Visitors' in line with standard usage. Imc (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Imc, so changed. Frietjes (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Opportunity of tagging as World Heritage Site single landmarks belonging to one site

There is currently a discussion on Talk:Istanbul#Istanbul_World_Heritage_Sites about the opportunity of tagging as World heritage site a single landmark belonging to a site. Interested users can join. Alex2006 (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

This template should allow multiple images

It would be nice to be able to put a photograph and a site plan for archeological sites. Can we do that? RO^(talk) 00:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Rationalobserver, done, see documentation. Frietjes (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Frietjas! Could you please do the same for Template:Infobox ancient site, or should I start a separate thread there? RO^(talk) 16:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Rationalobserver, that template already has |map=. Frietjes (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I see that now. Thanks, Frietjes! RO^(talk) 16:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Template throwing errors about latitude, longitude and other coord parameters

Why am I seeing these error messages? Why am I not seeing the coords displayed (I do see the map). I can see there have been some modifications to the template. There has been no discussion of those changes and why we are breaking articles. Kerry (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Kerry Raymond: Can you link to some example articles with problems? We want to get these problems fixed. This template is used in 5,168 pages. I looked at a dozen or so just now, and the coordinates look fine in those, so the articles you are seeing may be unusual in some way.

Discussion definitely happened, and it continues as the work continues. See Wikipedia:Coordinates in infoboxes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Mitchell railway station Kerry (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

And there was no discussion here nor any mention of a discussion affecting this template taking place elsewhere. Having written about 1500 or so of those 5,168 articles using this template, it might have been nice to allowed me to have some input into it. Kerry (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I have fixed the coordinates for you following the template's (updated) documentation. Feel free to ping me if you have any trouble with other articles. All of the articles using the now-deprecated |latitude= and |longitude= and other parameters should have been converted by a bot, but if you come across any others, feel free to let me know and I will fix them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I have 100+ draft articles which use those parameters, so all of those will have to be fixed. There was no discussion of this change or I would have pointed out all the articles I have in draft. Could we restore the situation where those parameters can be used until I have finished uploading those draft articles. I have spent 2 years on this project already and I think my contribution deserves a bit more respect than changing the template without any discussion here which breaks all the work I have done. Kerry (talk) 09:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I have restored the parameters to the template. How long will it take you to get those 100 articles uploaded? – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. How long will it take? It's taken me 2 years to do the first 1500 but those were the ones without existing Wikipedia articles. The last 200-ish are taking much longer per article as I have to merge the text with whatever is in an existing article. I seem to do about one a day when I am not dragged away to work on other projects (in January I have had 7 events for 1Lib1Ref and a Visual Editor training session at a local university, so I'm not getting much done on the heritage register project) and I am about to go on holidays for a month, so I don't expect to resume until March. If I can achieve one per day, maybe end of July. But as I am the only person doing Wikipedia outreach locally, I will inevitably have other events in that time period (I have a Visual Editor training day already booked for March). How about I tell you when I have finished? Kerry (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

That sounds fine. The migration of the remaining infoboxes with a mish-mash of coordinate parameters is going to take at least two more months, probably three or four. I'll keep this page on my watchlist, and I've put a note on Wikipedia:Coordinates in infoboxes to note that we should look at this talk page before making further changes to the template. Happy editing, and enjoy your holiday! – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

This template at Washington Monument was throwing errors in Preview for "highest_prev", "established", and "highest_next" which have not/do not appear in the resulting text so I am removing them. Instead {{Succesion box}} (between {{S-start}}, {{S-end}}) has been/is still used at the bottom of the article for that purpose. Although this article did use latitude (via lat_degrees, lat_minutes, lat_seconds, lat_direction) and longitude (via long_degrees, long_minutes, long_seconds, long_direction) at one time, another editor recently replaced them with {{Coord}}. — Joe Kress (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, unsupported parameters in this template will place the article in Category:Pages using infobox historic site with unknown parameters, and articles will show red error messages in Preview mode. Those error messages can help editors find typos, errors, and otherwise ignored parameters. I removed about 120 articles from the error category yesterday. Refer to the template's documentation to identify the correct parameters to use.

The user replacing coordinates is JJMC89 bot. You can see that edit, with appropriate links to explanatory pages, in the page's history. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Kerry Raymond, are you done with your article creation? If so, I'd like to finish converting this template. If not, how many drafts do you have left with the old-style coordinates in them? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I have 48 to go as per User:Kerry_Raymond#Statistics for en.Wikipedia. Are you able to help with the Queensland electoral boundaries? They have just changed (gazetted last Friday). Every Wikipedia article about every Queensland town/suburb/locality now needs to be checked and updated; I didn't realise this bombshell was about to drop. Goodness knows how long that is going to take to me and it will impede me working further on the QHR, on top of everything else (outreach, major deadlink citation problem following Qld State Archives website redesign, etc). I can't do it all. Kerry (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Wow, great progress! And yes, the work is never-ending. I'll update the note on the main page for the coordinates conversion project. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

WOSlinker, have you read the section above? Kerry Raymond still has some draft articles with the old coordinates and would like to post them without encountering errors.

Kerry Raymond: a proposal. We would like to close out the coordinates conversion project (this infobox is one of the last of 200+ templates that we have converted). WOSlinker and I will be happy to convert the coordinates for all of your 48 draft articles at any time. Would you be OK with providing a list of pages, pinging us when one is ready, or otherwise notifying us when you would like us to perform that service for you? I am on WP nearly every day of the year. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Jonesey95, no I hadn't. I can undo the change but it also depends on {{Geobox coor}} at the moment, which is at Tfd. So would need somme other changes as well, to just use {{Coord}} instead. -- WOSlinker (talk) 14:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation

@Frietjes: can we add pronunciation parameter field to this template? Many Asian / African / Native American sites have a local pronunciation, and are easy to grossly mispronounce. I am working on Aihole article, for example, and this field would be useful. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, is there any reason why the pronunciation is not in the lead paragraph of the article? Frietjes (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Frietjes: I am in the middle of an edit that is adding it, with WP:RS. I am finding it cumbersome as the RS supports the pronunciation, some parts of the lead sentence, but not all of it as the other sources cited. Putting the pronunciation and RS in the infobox would have been cleaner, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, here is a list of templates with this parameter. seems to be mostly people-centric infoboxes. I really don't care, but it would probably be good to get more input before adding it. Frietjes (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Frietjes: Thanks. I like your suggestion that we get more input, and would do it if I knew how and where to start that process. @Capankajsmilyo: can you help with the paperwork? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Paperwork? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 01:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

= Process / Formalities / RfC Capankajsmilyo. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Do we need RfC for this? It is being used in diverse Infoboxes like mountain, cave, diagnostic, drug etc. as is reflected from the link shared by Frietjes. I guess since there is no modification / deletion required, it would be good to go ahead with addition with appropriate update in the documentation for the template. RfC would have been good option if there were instances of considerable opposition to its use in other infoboxes. But that's my opinion. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 02:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I can't see a problem with adding pronunciation so long as it done in a consistent way with other infoboxes. I think we all have some hard-to-pronounce names in the articles we look after. Personally I would love to know how to pronounce Eulalia, Kyeewa, Myendetta etc. Kerry (talk) 05:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Alternative to "demolished"

Sometimes a site is no longer standing, but the end date is not a specific demolition but just gradual decline and destruction. For example, this is the case for Plered which slowly ruined throughout the 19th century. Should there be another parameter that doesn't sound as dramatic as "demolished"? HaEr48 (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found the (undocumented) end_label and end_date. @Frietjes: for your info. HaEr48 (talk) 01:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Parameter: Designation Authority

I'd like to suggest an additional parameter for each designation, to indicate the designation authority. I'm not clear on other localities, but in Scotland at least sites can be designated as protected by Historic Environment Scotland, local authorities and UNESCO. While the designation may indicate the authority in some cases (UNESCO World Heritage Sites, particularly), a category A listed building is displayed as just that - there's no mention in the infobox that Historic Environment Scotland are the designation authority. Most readers from overseas won't know who manages the register of listed buildings in Scotland. I feel this could be a useful parameter for sites worldwide. --Adam Black GB (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

This is what |designation1= is for. See the WikiProject page for an explanation of how this works, and then look at pages that use this template for examples of how it works. Here are a few examples: Royal Spanish Academy, Balmoral Castle, and Notre-Dame de Paris. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Why is this template so narrow?

This template is way too narrow. This is most notable in causing long words, especially locations, to wrap excessively. You get about 11 characters before it wraps!!! —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: have removed | bodystyle = width:250px.. thus giving the default width of '22em'. instead of "15.625em" ...notice a small change?--Moxy 🍁 14:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Please remove the 250px from the images too (sizedefault). 220px is default, and when its hard-coded it can not be changed by "preferences". See WP:IMGSIZE. Christian75 (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done. |image_size= will still work if specified. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Adding "upright" value for images

Could this template be updated to accept "upright" values for images? Thanks, Ajmint (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Added as |image_upright= in the sandbox. Please see Template:Infobox historic site/testcases, specifically Test 1, to experiment with it. Documentation on how it works is available at Module:InfoboxImage#Parameters. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

use centralised designation code

{{Infobox designation list}} was forked from this template a few years ago. The code in it is basically an exact duplicate of what's in here, but this was never updated to use that for some reason. I've updated it in the sandbox. Looks pretty much the same, see testcases. Mostly just cleanup code, to ensure the logic is centralised. Posting here to ensure no objections before I implement. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

See also

Template:Infobox ancient site

Thanks, TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Documentation page request

Please add 

 Not done: please edit Template:Infobox historic site/doc directly — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @MSGJ: - I didn't know that page was there and was editable. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

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)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

 Reverted pending discussion. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 15:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The search for maxsize shows a lot of maxsize in infoboxes because you changed it[2][3][4]. 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)

"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)

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)

"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)

@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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The Image Use Policy supersedes the MOS, a guideline. ɱ (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

@Hike395: Looks great to me. ɱ (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

 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)