Help talk:Infobox/Feb 2004 archive

From Wikisource
(Redirected from Wikisource talk:Infoboxes)
Jump to: navigation, search

Earliest thread[edit]

Well... personally, I think that it's visually unattractive. I'd be much more inclined toward providing meta-information in an infobox, along the lines of many series of Wikipedia articles. For example:
Manifesto of the Communist Party
Written: Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels,
late 1847
Published: February 1848
Language: English, translation (1888) from German by Samuel Moore
Type: Non-Fiction Texts
Wikipedia Article
- Jehanne 00:32, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Infobox regarding infoboxes. A standard template is on the oven me thinks. --Maio 00:53, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I've followed that; templates are developed for each project distinctly; I see no reason why Wikisource has to wait on any particular WikiProject. -- Jehanne 01:42, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Just as a test, I put an infobox in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. I'm not entirely satisfied with its appearance either, but it is an alternative to be considered. - Jehanne 15:48, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The general Infobox idea seems attractive. I had some involvenent in the early development of the taxoboxes for taxonomy, and a similar one for battles. I thus strongly support the further development of the idea. Further discussion is required, notably over what these boxes should include, and what should be linked. Eclecticology 21:51, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have removed the "align=right" parameter from the infobox in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn - this places the index under the box, wich gives a much better appearence. --Christian S 09:23, 11 May 2004 (UTC)


Infoboxes[edit]

Discussion originated in Wikisource:Scriptorium and Wikisource talk:Index. Moved to here by User:Maio Feb 20, 2004.

Since there seems to be a rough consensus to try to adapt the infobox (well, there's three of us posting thus far, so maybe consensus isn't the right word... let's imagine that we're WikiProject:Source Documents (because, well... we are) and establish a standard format. Below is the current infobox from Huck Finn.

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
Written by: Mark Twain (other works)
Published: February 18, 1885
Language: English
Type: Fiction
Full text version

Wikipedia article
Wikiquote entry

Chapters 1 - 8


Chapters 9 - 16
Chapters 17 - 21
Chapters 22 - 28
Chapters 29 - 35
Chapters 36 - 43



   The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn   

Written by: Mark Twain (other works)
Published: February 18, 1885
Language: English
Type: Fiction
Full text version


Wikipedia article
Wikiquote entry


Chapters
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43

Let's refine. -- Jehanne 13:50, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think that I added the 'Wikipedia article' link redundancy by accident, so I have removed it. I removed the aling and the margin attributes so it could be easier to see the infobox. Don't worry about that, the final version will have them.
Do you think we should rename other works to see other works or should we link the author to its Author: page? The author page should have a link to the wikipedia artile of him/her anyways, but I really like this approach more (linking the author wikipedia article and a separate link for his/her other works).
--Maio 14:32, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I have a few observations
  1. I think that the link to the Author page in Wikisource is more important here than the one to Wikipedia. That would encourage more users to use Wikisource channels. (Nothing wrong with a little self-promotion! :-))
  2. I don't see much point to creating date links.
  3. Perhaps we should have a copyright status section.
  4. If something is a translation, some detail may need to be added there showing the translator and when the translation was published
  5. I would add a classification section where LC or Dewey or other classifications, perhaps of our own invention, could be added. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_classification
  6. Not everybody will like filling in these boxes, and it should be made clear to people that we will accept their contributions anyway.
Eclecticology 22:57, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Re 6, people don't like infobox or taxobox exactly because they look like a morass. Try Magnus' tables instead. It simplifies things and increases the readability. --Menchi 09:47, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

ooh... pretty colors[edit]

Just for the heck of it. Some (fairly random) ideas... -- Jehanne 20:38, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Fiction mediumslateblue (7b68ee)
Poetry mediumseagreen (3cb371)
Non-Fiction peru (cd853f)
Speeches gold (ffd700)
    Historical Documents     darkkhaki (bdb76b)
Religious Texts bisque (ffe4c4)
Mathematics silver (c0c0c0)
Source Code/Data gray (808080)
Election Data firebrick (b22222)
Except for the fact that I find the black print hard to read on some of these colours (We could try white print on some of them.) these banners should look very attractive. I say this without prejudice about which colour will be used for which kind of heading. If we follow my proposal about primary categorization, that would not prevent us from using colours to apply Maio's ideas in a parallel manner! Eclecticology 22:25, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I did one for Election data which is found here: 1964 Greater London Council election - fonzy