Tardis talk:Infobox development 2009 to 2011

Design Discussion
I just wanted to start a bit of a discussion on what everyone would like to see in the infobox design for the site. A unified color scheme? A different color scheme depending on the type of infobox? Lots of individual fields (Writer 1, Writer 2, and Writer 3) or a single field with an expectation of multiple entries?

Once we have some consensus on design ideas we can post them on the project page as guidelines for development.

Does anyone have any thoughts? --Raukodraug 16:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's see:


 * 1) Different colour schemes: If it's different objects, use different colours. There's so many repetitions between fields that infoboxes look very similar unless they are different colours.
 * 2) One field, many entries: Having multiple fields for the same type of entry just seems redundant.
 * 3) Optional fields: The thing I really liked about the newest comic infobox was that if you didn't have an entry for a field, it wouldn't show. The Alias field is very rarely used, but it's always there for all the species and planet and individual infoboxes.
 * 4) Not too large: Just keep it to the essentials. If you need more information, just read the article.
 * 5) That "No Picture Available" picture was kind-of neat: You know, the one from the newest comic infobox.
 * Those are the only major features I can think of at the moment. -<Azes13 16:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with everything Azes said, except about the "No pic" picture. I thought it was rather garish and distracting. Although I might be able to live with it if it were smaller. Monkey with a Gun 17:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought there was an over use of images, the dialogue box as well as the no pic image were all a little over done.
 * Also I think we should keep the text rather than replacing it with arrows and mouse overs. For me it introduced some usability issues in various instances.
 * Different colour schemes are good, the current blue (Doctor Who), pinky (SJS) and browny red (Torchwood) are nice bold and different colours for each of the series' (and we'll need a colour scheme for the K-9 series also).
 * If we were to go fully colour coordinating would we make those colour schemes also specific to the magazines, comics, audios and whatever else each series is connected to (so the Torchwood magazines, comics and audio infoboxes would all be in browny red etc)?
 * Also agree with Azes13 with regards to optional fields and one field. 'Not too large' yes and added to that not too complex, too many fields, even if they're optional fields are often too many and are overwhelming for editors. --Tangerineduel 17:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My only concern with optional fields is that an editor may not be able to tell what information is missing from an infobox.   A blank field clues editors in to what still needs to be added.  My feeling is that they should be used sparingly.  --Raukodraug 20:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If they need to know what other fields could be filled in, they can just click the link under the Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page: and look at the infobox. As well, most of the time the field isn't filled in because there is no information on the matter, not because the specific editors don't know. -<Azes13 00:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Developments so far
Hello all. I've had a go at implementing on of the suggestions; the optional fields. Take a look at Template:Infobox Spinoff test and here:

You'll notice (take a look at the code) that all the fields have been included, but only those that are filled have appeared. As you can see this is the Spinoffs infobox so this 'optional field' option can be included into the infoboxes we're using at the moment should we wish to. Thoughts? --Tangerineduel 14:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that seems to work fine and have all the needed parts. I'd go for it. -<Azes13 17:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've edited the infobox slightly and applied the optional fields to everything (including the image), so the only thing that's needed is a name, if there's nothing else the infobox will collapse down to just that. --Tangerineduel 08:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've hit a slight slight snag in applying this to the Individual infobox, the individual infobox has #if tags, to make the collapsing field function I have to remove these. Which is fine if the infoboxes have been applied to the pages with all the fields written in.
 * What this means is you need to include all fields (like actor and alias for example) even if there isn't any information for it to make the various fields collapse. In a majority of cases this shouldn't be a problem. It just means when looking at the wiki code there will be a variety of empty fields present in the code (but not on the page). --Tangerineduel 08:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, one of the problems mentioned with optional fields was that people might not know what fields there are to be filled in, so that fixes that problem. -<Azes13 15:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Implementation
I've applied the collapsing/optional field to Template:Infobox Individual (to the alias and actor fields), Template:Infobox Species (to the aka field) and to Template:Infobox Astronomical Object (again to the aka field). I'll leave this for a day or so and see if there are any issues present in these various infoboxes.

If there isn't should we roll out this function (I was thinking of adding to Comic, Conflict, Torchwood comic, Organization infoboxes as they're the ones often lacking things). Also should it be to all of the fields?. Additionally should the image field be left with 'No image available' or collapsed as well? Thanks. --Tangerineduel 16:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * for individuals, I would like a special kind of infobox for regular and semi-regular characters, as well as Doctors, the main eleven and the more obscure ones. the regular ones would have first appearance (i.e. the story which introduced them in the real world, not the earliest chronologically, as this can differ), a field saying role ("companion of Xth Doctor", "mother of Maria Jackson", "Torchwood 3 member", "husband of Gwen Cooper", etc.) and relatives, if any.


 * the Doctor one would have first appearance, the story in which they regenerated, and companions. --Stardizzy2 17:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Isn't that a case of trying to cram lots more into the infobox? That information is already (or should be) contained within the article.
 * I dislike the idea of a "role" it implies they are given definition by others, which takes away some of the individuality of the characters. Also as all of this is past tense it makes it a little more complicated take Jack it would be '(Former) Companion of the Ninth Doctor, (Former) Companion of the Tenth Doctor, (Former) Torchwood member, (Former) Time Agent, etc'.
 * For something like the first appearances, I think perhaps the List of Appearances pages could be redesigned/added to so they have a lead in paragraph about the first and last stories so they're more than just a list of appearances. --Tangerineduel 18:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)