Problem: Les infobox sont des outils intéressants pour enrichir des articles ou en faire une synthèse facilement compréhensible/accessible. Cependant, il est nécessaire que le contributeur connaisse l'existence de l'infobox qui l'intéresse et de plus en connaisse la structure. Il devra donc par la suite, aller sur la page modèle de l'infobox, faire un copier-coller du code et la remplir. La pratique la plus courante reste le copier-coller depuis d'autres articles, ce qui pose encore un problème : si l'article original avait une veille version ou une version incomplète de l'infobox, cela se propagera aux autres articles.
Infoboxes are useful tools for enriching articles or making them easily comprehensible/accessible. However, it is necessary for the contributor to know the existence of the infobox that interests him/her and to know more about its structure. He will then have to go to the infobox template page, copy and paste the code and fill it in. The most common practice is still to copy and paste it from other articles, which still poses a problem: if the original article had a previous version or an incomplete version of the infobox, it will spread to other articles.
Who would benefit: Tous les contributeurs
All contributors
Proposed solution: Créer une fonction recherche disponible depuis la barre d'outil principale lors de la modification d'article. Cette recherche permettra de naviguer dans les infobox (Recherche par titre ou catégorie), puis de directement récupérer dans l'article la structure de l'infobox (dans sa dernière version).
Suggested solution: Create a search function available from the main toolbar when editing an article. This search will allow you to browse the infoboxes (search by title or category) and then directly retrieve the structure of the infobox (in its latest version) in the article.
@Framawiki: Any chance I could solicit your help with translations? (If you don't have time, don't worry :) Using Google Translate, it sounds like Snerkl is having trouble with infoboxes being changed, but the articles that use them aren't updated to the new format. If a parameter is deprecated, for example, the template could check for the invalid parameter, and if present put the article in a maintenance category. From there, a bot can go through the category and fix the template issues. This is how we do it on English Wikipedia. Could you ask Snerkl if that would help? Also, could I get clarification on what the proposed solution is? Thanks so much :) Google Translate only goes but so far! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 04:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello MusikAnimal (WMF), here is a quick translation. I's probably not better than Google Translate, but more technically understandable I hope :)
Infoboxes are useful tools for enriching articles or making them easily comprehensible/accessible. However, it is necessary for the contributor to know the existence of the infobox that interests him/her and to know more about its structure. He will then have to go to the infobox template page, copy and paste the code and fill it in. The most common practice is still to copy and paste it from other articles, which still poses a problem: if the original article had a previous version or an incomplete version of the infobox, it will spread to other articles.
Suggested solution: Create a search function available from the main toolbar when editing an article. This search will allow you to browse the infoboxes (search by title or category) and then directly retrieve the structure of the infobox (in its latest version) in the article.
On frwiki too template editors ask bot maintainers to change parameters of infoboxes. Here it seems to want to take the problem at the root for page creations. with a tool to directly add the right syntax. So it could match the visual editor. --Framawiki (talk) 06:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Snerkl:(French) Sur Wikipédia en français, il est possible de demander (fr:wp:RBOT) des corrections des paramètres d'infobox ou d’autres modèles, mais ce n'est pas automatique. Peut-être que l'éditeur visuel (fr:aide:EV) correspond à ton désir d'avoir des infoboxes correctes à la création des pages ?
(English) On Wikipedia in French, it is possible to request corrections of infobox parameters or other models, but this is not automatic. Maybe the visual editor corresponds to your desire to have correct infoboxes when creating pages? --Framawiki (talk) 06:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if it would be better to make smarter infoboxes that figure out what they should represent given information on Wikidata. They would then contain parts given what data are available, and have rules to include or exclude parts as appropriate. — Jeblad22:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm hoping that at least some of this functionality (the infobox parameter lists) will be superceded by Wikidata-driven infoboxes, but the ability to find infoboxes in articles that don't currently have one sounds useful. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice idea, I would like the wizard to be flexible per-wiki and perhaps even have additional ways of modifying the wizard for particular topics Gryllida00:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nope, this will cause a mess on projects where infoboxes can be controversial (such as en.wiki). I know we're not en.wp specific here, but I do think creating a technical tool that would only fuel fighting on the largest project is a particularly bad idea. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
(talk) 07:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Neutral I'm hoping that at least some of this functionality (the infobox parameter lists) will be superceded by Wikidata-driven infoboxes, but the ability to find infoboxes in articles that don't currently have one sounds useful. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Oppose nope, this will cause a mess on projects where infoboxes can be controversial (such as en.wiki). I know we're not en.wp specific here, but I do think creating a technical tool that would only fuel fighting on the largest project is a particularly bad idea. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
