Infoboxes
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes articles

Infoboxes are not a requirement, indeed there are many featured articles where the authors have expressly gone out of their way to keep an infobox out of the article, when an "appropriate" one exists. This template should therefore not read as a warning (striking colour, exclamation sign, aggressive use implying that infoboxes are policy). If changes are not made to the template to reflect the fact that it's merely trying to be helpful, rather than serving as a disparaging template on articles without them, I will nominate it for deletion. WFCforLife (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. I somewhat agree with you in that not all articles need infoboxes. It is also true, though, that this template will only be placed on articles where there has been a specific request for an infobox, so on those articles, it kind of is urgent. Perhaps we could remove the background color and make it look more like the {{Articleissues}} template. The wording would be something to the extent of "It has been requested that an infobox be included on this page. While infoboxes are not mandatory on all articles, they help summarize many of them. If a suitable infobox is found for this article, it should be included at the top and this template should be removed. See this talk page for the banners of any relevant projects, which may provide a standardized infobox for this type of article. See also Category:Infobox templates, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I've never removed an infobox (and never would), but I often create stubs (sometimes semi-complete articles) without them, not through laziness, but because I don't see the gain. More than once I've removed this tag, on the grounds that it is derogatory when it has no right to be. You are correct though- if other editors feel one would help, a tag that does the job of this one could be helpful.

I agree with the wording you have proposed, although graphics wise I think it should look more like the header of {{WPBiography}} when |living=yes is filled in.

As an aside, I can think of cases where an infobox simply doesn't add anything, from stubs like Arthur Woodward (footballer), to featured articles like Mary Shelley. In both cases, everything you would find in the infobox is covered in five lines. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion ran its course for two and a half weeks, and I informed the relevant parties. I've made the changes I consider appropriate, taking into account Dudemanfellabra's comments. If reverting, please give your reasons here. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be a good idea to restyle this template so that it detects what space it's in? On SoftMaker it's in the article space but it's typically intended for talk pages. I thought it might be nice to make it look like our other article issues templates with the coloring, etc. Raymie Humbert (t • c) 03:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Infoboxes are usually helpful but by the same token usually optional. As such, this template belongs on the talk page, along with {{reqphoto}}. --WFC-- 04:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Slightly facetious but nonetheless relevant point. If this tag is redesigned for the article space, would it belong on this article? --WFC-- 04:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a growing consensus that article template names on Wikipedia should use clear language and avoid cryptic abbreviations when unnecessary. Some recent template renames include:

In keeping with this convention, it seems it would be a good idea to rename this template to something like {{needs infobox}}. (Given the pattern above, {{infobox requested}} is also a possibility, but it's not already in use and {{needs infobox}} is, which suggests that the community prefers the latter.)

Thoughts? Tim Pierce (talk) 04:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with the desire for clearer language. However, "needs infobox" suggests that infoboxes are needed or manditory. Which is not the case, even on featured articles. Therefore I would support a proposal for {{infobox requested}}, and be very much opposed to {{needs infobox}}. --WFC-- 04:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with {{infobox requested}}. Tim Pierce (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, the bottom example above is not a "recent template rename" as far as I can tell? --WFC-- 05:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, the {{reqtaxobox}} change is not actually recent. Tim Pierce (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support {{infobox requested}}. A bold page-move should be fine. There are many editors cleaning up our templates names, so that they aren't using awkward abbreviations or CamelCase. Do it :) -- Quiddity (talk) 23:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for the feedback, everyone. Tim Pierce (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised this issue at Template talk:WikiProject Jazz but thought I'd ask here, as well. Is there some way that this template can account for the intersection (if any) with WikiProjects? For example, {{WikiProject Jazz}} has a "needs-infobox=" parameter, which when set to "yes" places the article within Category:Jazz articles needing infoboxes. {{WikiProject Biography}} also has that parameter (which places the page within Category:Biography articles without infoboxes). It seems redundant to set this to "yes" for both banners, but that's what I've been doing in order for a given page to appear in the relevant WikiProject categories ("Cat:foo articles needing infoboxes"). More recently I've seen this parameter usage replaced with {{Infobox requested}}, which places the page within Category:Wikipedia articles with an infobox request but does not otherwise specify WP:JAZZ, WP:BIO etc. Is there a way to set up this template so that it will detect any infobox requests, and/or set those infoboxes' "needs-infobox=yes", and/or otherwise place the article's talk page into "Cat:foo articles needing infoboxes"? I'm also planning a 'bot request to go through Category:Jazz and add {{WikiProject Jazz}} to talk pages that don't already have it – perhaps the 'bot can take care of this additional task if {{infobox requested}} can't do it on its own. (Also note that in the meantime I've placed "Cat:Jazz articles needing infoboxes" within "Cat:Wikipedia articles with an infobox request".) Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Just in case it isn't clear: This isn't necessarily referring to requests for multiple infoboxes – rather, that the request needs to be visible in more than one request category. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know about automating the process, but it seems the great majority of WikiProject tags can take a |needs-infobox parameter. This is probably more useful than a general tag since it sorts the article into a topic-specific category of articles needing infoboxes. It's almost worth TfD, if not for those occasional articles that just don't fit under the scope of any extant WikiProject (or at least not any with compatible tags). Anyway, my fixes should improve matters... so long as people read the documentation. (Ha!) --BDD (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current categorization system ({{DMCAT|Articles covered by WikiProject Wikify|from|{{{date|}}}|All articles covered by WikiProject Wikify}}) puts articles without a defined |date= into Category:Articles covered by WikiProject Wikify (in addition to Category:All articles covered by WikiProject Wikify). Could someone fix it somehow so that they are not displayed in Category:Articles covered by WikiProject Wikify? benzband (talk) 11:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Not done - Please show a consensus for this change. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 14:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Technical 13: Thanks for replying;

Since the TfD/deprecation of {{wikify}}, and the integration of many issue-specific categories and templates into Category:Articles covered by WikiProject Wikify, said category has a many subcategories (including 1, 2‎, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8‎, 9‎, 10‎), which are governed by templates, {{infobox requested}} among them. Each template categorizes the page under a template-specific category (here for infobox requests), the corresponding monthly specific category (not the case for this template, because it doesn't have a date parameter), the general Wikify category Category:Articles covered by WikiProject Wikify, and the corresponding monthly Wikify category (for instance Category:Articles covered by WikiProject Wikify from November 2013). This system was meant to keep things organized, with the main category as a directory of subcategories, each documenting a specific issue of the backlog that Wikifiers can choose to focus their attention on (see this archived project discussion).

{{Infobox requested}} (and as far as I can tell only it; but if there are others they should be dealt with to), however, currently puts articles not only into the subcategories it's supposed to (Category:Wikipedia articles with an infobox request and Category:All articles covered by WikiProject Wikify) but also into the Category:Articles covered by WikiProject Wikify category.

I am only asking for someone to please fix the DMCA template so that the pages with an {{infobox requested}} template on them don't appear in Category:Articles covered by WikiProject Wikify, because they have no place there and are already listed in the appropriate subcategories. Again, this is how the other templates under WikiProject Wikify work and it's how the system was designed during the restructuring of CAT:WWF. I have posted another note at Wikiproject Wikify, but the project isn't very active. benzband (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Benzband says is absolutely right. This is a simple technical fix, not a radical new proposal requiring consensus. If it helps, though, there's definitely consensus at WikiProject Wikify that this is how the categorisation system should work; you can see that from the discussion Benzband linked to (this one), and the fact that the system has been in place for over a year without causing any problems. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I'd be happy to dig into this and find what needs to be changed unless one of you could give me a "Change X to Y" for this. I have a pounding headache from exhaustion, but I should be rested up tomorrow and can start digging if needed. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The talk pages should start disappearing from Category:Articles covered by WikiProject Wikify soon. Cheers, LittleMountain5 04:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Technical 13, DoctorKubla and Little Mountain 5! benzband (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it though, if you take a look at the current documentation you will find no mention of a |date= parameter; nor will you find one in the current source code except for in the {{DMCAT}} template. Now, if you check the usage you'll find that no or few (personally I found none) {{infobox requested}} templates have a date parameter defined; also note that there are no monthly subcategories for Category:Wikipedia articles with an infobox request.
So maybe we could just do away with the date parameter altogether and replace {{DMCAT|Articles covered by WikiProject Wikify|from|{{{date|}}}|All articles covered by WikiProject Wikify}} with a simple [[Category:All articles covered by WikiProject Wikify]]; either that or provide a minimum of support (maybe even and categories) for it. benzband (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the text presented by the template, in order of need, please remove:

• the comma in the third sentence. If not a typo, surely a syntactic/grammatical error..?;
• the comma in the second sentence. Splits a single notion – no? (The sentence may also benefit from some rephrasing: "You may wish to add one so that it resembles the standard for articles on this subject more closely.", for example...);
• the comma in the final sentence. Even if serial commas are preferred, are they still used between the items in a two-item list..?

Sardanaphalus (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]