Wikivoyage talk:Information boxes

I have really, really strong opinions against using templates for content. I would prefer that we discuss this on Project:template policy. --(WT-en) Evan 23:37, 14 Nov 2004 (EST)

Agreed, I'd like to make sure were focusing our effort in the best way and that we're all on the same page before we start having stuff like this. (WT-en) Majnoona 23:46, 14 Nov 2004 (EST)

I've removed Project:information boxes from the Project:manual of style right now until we're sure it's a good idea to go forward with this. --(WT-en) Evan 00:29, 15 Nov 2004 (EST)

Almost a year has passed — infoboxes are now used in 50-odd articles and have been ported to de and ja, so perhaps it's time to formalize them? (WT-en) Jpatokal 05:44, 4 Oct 2005 (EDT)

Local Interest Infoboxes

Swept in from the pub by (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx)

Many dead-tree travelguides will have a sidebar with little blurbs containing say, little bits of history, or local interest stories that add dimension and character to a destination. What is Wikivoyage's policy on things such as this, if any? I do not see many, if any of these on the site. Is this sort of thing wanted here? I can think of many examples of such blurbs in my area that may interest a traveller and add some insight to the area but they do not fit within the context of the current template style. Any thoughts on this? -- (WT-en) bulliver 03:07, 20 March 2006 (EST)

I make a habit of sprinkling these into articles I write (see. eg Kawasaki, Cape Ashizuri) and they've so far managed to survive deletion. The main issue is that the Infobox template used to create them has never been formally accepted, due to Evan's resistance to the use of templates, but this seems to be less of an issue these days. See Project:Information boxes. (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:16, 20 March 2006 (EST)

Yeah, that's exactly what I am talking about. So if I understand here, it is not the information in, well, a box that is the point of contention, but the use of templates to create them? Is there not strait wiki markup that can be used? I feel quite strongly that these things can be very effective if not overused. Using an obvious example here, consider the Ogopogo. It is not a place you can visit or a thing you can do, but is still tangible information that draws tourists to the region and contributes largely to its charm. -- (WT-en) bulliver 03:45, 20 March 2006 (EST)

I like those a lot - after seeing the Singapore article I started using them and have put them on Las Vegas, South Georgia and others and think that they make the article more interesting. And if we're gonna do them, a template should definitely be used to keep things consistent -- what was the argument against the infobox template? -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:51, 20 March 2006 (EST)

Shared infoboxes

The creation of Boleto turistico – which is included by template in a few different articles to which it applies – raises the question of A) whether to allow this, and B) if so, how to support it. One of main problems is that they show up as "orphaned", which would probably require manually maintaining an index of them. (ugh) - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 13:38, 4 June 2006 (EDT)

For the case of Boleto turistico this kind of reusable content seems useful, but I would imagine we want to implement some very restrictive guidelines to avoid having zillions of these types of articles show up on the site. Off the top of my head:

• Any content put into a shared infobox should be highly important information for travelers. For example, any visitor to sites around Cuzco must have a Boleto turistico, so that information must be included in each article and is therefore a good candidate. Something like the National Parks Pass, which allows free entrance to US national parks, is not required to visit a park - a user who did not know about that pass could still visit the park by paying the normal entrance fee.
• The content should include information that changes on a regular basis, such as costs, contact information, and attraction entrance information. The goal of having these shared infoboxes should be to make it easier to keep important information up-to-date. For example, a warning about AIDS in Africa, while important information, does not change frequently enough that it should need its own infobox.
• The content should be important to three or more articles. If only two articles need to include the infobox just include the content within the article.
• The content should not be about subjects that Wikivoyage normally avoids, such as train or bus schedules.

Those are just suggestions to hopefully move this discussion along... as to the "orphaned" issue, does the MediaWiki software still overlook inclusions? If so, a manual list would probably be the only solution. -- (WT-en) Ryan 12:29, 16 June 2006 (EDT)

Funfact

Would it be ok to use an info box for fun facts? Like ... Place 4GH671XT has over 4J3OP4109GHEIW festivals, did you know? (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 17:29, 19 December 2008 (EST).

Boxes not rendered well by pdf export?

Swept in from the pub

Apparently cautionboxes, infoboxes and the likes are not rendered well when users create "books" by converting articles into pdfs. I'd be loath to see them go. How do we fix this? Edited to add: User:Ceever has been converting such boxes as are not rendered correctly in pdf form into flowing text. I have asked he not do that until we address the issue here. He's of course very invited to weigh in here. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

What's the status of the changes to the pdf-rendering tool? Did it change recently, or is it going to change soon? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Apparently the issue is that it doesn't render boxes correctly now I know neither whether that problem has always existed nor what causes it. I also only know it through description by User:Ceever, among them edit summaries. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Johan, do you know anything about this issue? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The new renderer might not solve the problem either, or are we certain about that? Couldn't we have a look into the definition of the boxes? It seems like all kind of have the problem, so maybe a simple fix will do. I have created boxes made of html myself without the templates and their content is not lost during the rendering. Ceever (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Alignment

header text

The template {{infobox}} can also be aligned to the left now, after I've done some modifications to the template. I remember reading some archived discussions on someone wanting the infobox to also be on the left, but the template can now handle it. So {{infobox|header|text}} will align it to the left as you see to the left. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)