Category talk:Infobox templates/Archive 1

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.

Sorting out these infoboxes

Global or individual

Quoting my to-do list:

 Comment We have fragmented infoboxes that are shared among items (hat infobox being used for misc items)... one central infobox or truly seperate infoboxes need to be implemented.

I believe it's time to get started with this. I want this discussion to be used to decide which approach we should take for infoboxes: An individual infobox for each type of item OR A global infobox.

Stick your arguments for / against below, use  Approve or  Oppose to label the context of your comment under each section: I'm trying to keep neutral in this discussion, so I'll just add some example opinions on each as I think of them.
RJ 16:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Individual infoboxes

•  Oppose Individual infoboxes would be a pain to update if there's an item-wide attribute change. -RJ 16:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Global infobox

•  Approve Only one place to edit global attribute changes. All the attributes for items would have to be within the item's article - no infobox defaults.
•  Approve I stated this earlier and I think it should occur.  – Smashman _(talk) 18:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Support For the same reason Smashman points out. ~ lhavelund ^{(talk ▪ contrib)} 00:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Approve Some items may have a lot of similarities, and yes, separate infoboxes are complicated to update them all. Shock394 03:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion started 21/10/10. Discussion will end 28/10/10. (1 week).-RJ 16:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

 Info Nobody voting for Individual infoboxes after 4 days, I think we can consider a Global infobox the agreed solution. -RJ 17:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Infobox attributes

This will list all of the current attributes categorised according to their exclusivity toward types of item, feel free to add attributes that you think should be implemented. This list will be invaluable when it comes to authoring the infobox documentation.

Global

• name-override
• NAME
• name
• image
• released
• contributed-by
• availability
• tradable
• craftable
• has-team-colors
• used-by
• item-name
• slot
• paint
• name-tag
• quality
• display-loadout-stats
• purchasable
• level-and-type
• att-1-positive
• att-1-negative
• att-1-neutral
• att-2-positive
• positive-attributes
• att-2-negative
• att-2-neutral
• att-3-positive
• att-3-negative
• negative-attributes
• att-3-neutral
• att-4-positive
• att-4-negative
• att-4-neutral
• att-5-positive
• att-5-negative
• att-5-neutral
• att-6-positive
• att-6-negative
• att-6-neutral
• item-description
• item-uses
• item-flags
• backpack-image

Class

• voice-actor

Hat

• availability (use bool, true/false)

• uncrate (def false)
• drop (def true)
• promotion (def false)
• purchase (def false)

Weapon

• skin-image-red
• skin-image-blue
• has-two-models
• TFC-model
• QTF-model
• is-censored
• kill-icon1
• kill-icon2
• kill-text
• dark-killnotice
• kill-icon3
• kill-icon4
• kill-icon5
• kill-icon6
• ammo-loaded
• ammo-carried
• reload
• reload-type

Drafting

I've started some stuff in my user space already, see User:Seb26/Item infobox and User:Seb26/Item infobox/1. seb26 [talk] 06:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah brilliant. The next thing I'm doing to do is try and clean up the attributes list, see if some of them aren't really necessary. Something else has recently popped into my mind, and I'd like your opinion on it (especially as to whether it's logistically viable): Would it be possible to have an Item infobox/core that has all the infobox attributes for every weapon; and we'd only have to put {{Item infobox}} into the item pages? I think that would be useful when it comes to updates: There's only one place to make the volume of changes, and it makes the item pages themselves less complicated and intimidating for wiki novices. -RJ 16:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Any implementation we could come up with would be, in my mind, largely inefficient. That being said I disagree with the idea of keeping them separate to begin with. Sure it's easier to update language pages, etc, but the added complication and confusion that it creates for newer users (figuring out why the figures aren't there on the page already, working out where they are stored instead, deciding whether to edit the sole values page at all in case something breaks [and this does happen]) – it's not worth it when you consider the amount of time and effort saved. On the subject of the infobox again, the draft I've been working on is almost complete but will need testing on several different types of pages (TFC, languages, taunts, other special cases). seb26 [talk] 04:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Attributes: Jigglebones?

There was discussion here about adding whether or not an item has jigglebones to the infoboxes - Since you are currently working on cleaning them up I thought I'd suggest that as a potential attribute to have in them. Dislexsick 02:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't find jigglebones interesting enough to add them to the infobox. ~ lhavelund ^{(talk ▪ contrib)} 18:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Jigglebones are worth noting in the description or trivia, but the infobox seems a weird place for it (especially since so many hats are unjiggleboned). --Tinker 17:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The preceding discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.