Template talk:Infobox designation list

Template:Infobox designation list is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.

Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

Purpose

I created this template per a discussion on Template talk:Infobox building#Additional Designations & Fields. {{Infobox Historic building}} was merged into it, and a couple of users wanted to add the same Designation data as {{Infobox Historic Site}}. Then I started to notice other articles on other kinds of sites and areas needed to have the same data too, ranging from museums, bridges, settlements, and other structures. And therer are all these other geography and place infobox templates that are being used. So this is the result. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question

What am I doing wrong in this article? I embedded designation list in {{Infobox church}}, but seem to just prompt the "serversguild" field. I'm having the same problem elsewhere, so I must be missing something. If anyone can offer some assistance, that would be much appreciated. Cheers, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See this edit: [1]. It is the parameter that is actually filled out and displayed at the bottom of the infobox, not any of the blank ones. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's extremely helpful. Thanks. I feel a bit stupid not realizing that. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trailing spaces

Every use of this template that I have checked creates space at the bottom. This does not appear to be a fixed amount, but varies depending on the parameters used. I would think that this could be easily fixed, by someone who knows what they are doing - not me! Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, it was a side effect of the changes made on 16 Nov 2011, along with the bordered cell (with the designation name) being made to appear off-center. I have temporarily reverted it back to the previous version. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zzyzx11 appears to have fixed the issue. Well done. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 December 2014

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Designation list → Template:Infobox designation list – In keeping with similar templates. Alternatively, change the protection level to allow template editors to make the move. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent changes

@Alakzi:, I have reverted your recent changes here that displays the title when embedding, as it seems to be adding several issues that I do not think you have tested. Some of the issues I have noticed after you have been making changes here and on the related infoboxes include:

The issue discussed on Template talk:Infobox road#Reversion to the embedded parameter, specifically the addition of a thin line. As mentioned by one commentator there, perhaps you should have seeked discussion first per Wikipedia:Template editor#When to seek discussion for template changes.
The fact that template:infobox building has a separate designations parameter. infobox designation list may not necessarily always be inserted in the module or embedded parameter, and instead may be inserted there (which would result in the "designations" label appearing twice). That parameter also allows users to manually add a designation that is not listed on Template:Designation.
- Likewise, Template:infobox bridge has a heritage parameter, as many designations are for heritage status
- So too does Template:Infobox monastery with its heritage_designation
- Template:Infobox protected area is also similar in that it has a separate world_heritage_site parameter as an option to include the World Heritage Site designation
- I've seen the use of the separate designation parameter in Template:Infobox body of water too
- Template:Geobox also has separate specific parameters for World Heritage Site, as well as a designations parameter
In Template:Infobox settlement, your addition of the module parameter yesterday[2] was made several years after infobox designation list was created. Users were previously adding it to the footnotes parameter or per the method on Template:Infobox NRHP#Embedding regarding infobox lighthouse. In those articles that use the footnotes parameter, this renders "Designations" to default to the small sized font, along with a border separating that label from the designations themselves, making it appear that they are in separate sections of the infobox.

I'm sure there are others. But I think these issues are substantial per Wikipedia:Template editor#When to seek discussion for template changes. As I mentioned above, I created this template in 2011 as a compromise, but many of the separate heritage or designation parameters I mentioned above probably existed beforehand. And shortly afterwards, many infoboxes did not yet have separate module or embedded parameters, so they were being inserted into other parameters such as footnotes or per the method on Template:Infobox NRHP#Embedding. So unless you can guarantee every single one of the 2213+ articles that use this have been checked first, we should not make alterations that cause unintentional borders or font sizes to appear, extra lines or borders on an infobox that people disagree with, or "designations" appearing twice. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of all of these. In order:

That has been addressed there.
Modules should not be placed in any other field, and I'd have caught the outliers eventually. A duplicate "Designations" that'd have been taken care of soonish is hardly anything to kick up a fuss about.
I fixed all of the lighthouse transclusions yesterday. Settlement will take a little longer; as for the text appearing in small text, above a divider, see directly above.

I'm sure there are others. Then please point these out. But I think these issues are substantial ... My edits here and elsewhere fall under point 3 - "Changes that can usually be made unilaterally". Except in cases where the module was used incorrectly, my changes were an immediate improvement. In cases where it was used incorrectly, they made little or no practical or semantic difference, but altered the presentation a little for the worse. Issues with NRHP can be discussed there. Alakzi (talk) 10:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, please point to me the guideline -- yes guideline, not essay -- that says that all modular infobox templates must have a header. This was designed to emulate the presentations of Template:Infobox historic site and Template:Infobox religious building, which do not currently have such "designations" headers. This never was a problem there or here until you made your recent changes. They should not be inconsistent.
Second, the burden is on the one who wants to make new changes to make sure it is backward compatible. Why should it be my job to point any other possible problems out to you that currently exist? Recent changing the doc page here [3] or Template:Infobox NRHP/doc [4] does not automatically erase a common standard practice that was done for years prior. Or the common use of parameters that existed prior to this template's creation.
Just comparing uses with Infobox lighthouse or Infobox settlement just scratches the surface. Historic designations are not solely concentrated on buildings and structures. Designations such as National Treasure (Japan) and Pennsylvania state historical markers also recognize historic items, events and people, so this template may also be used in conjunction with a wide array of other infoboxes that never had a module or embedded parameter added.
The exact header on WP:TPE reads, "Changes that can usually be made unilaterally, but which, depending on the circumstances, you may want to open up for discussion first". Sorry, but adding a new header does not qualify as "Edits that affect a template's appearance, but only slightly". On the contrary, it is a major addition (per my first point of it resembling Infobox historic site, etc), and any alteration of the presentation for the worse, even to a small degree, is not acceptable if you disregard the concept of backward compatibility or my position that it should resemble those other infoboxes.

Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to overlook the straw man, have we now come to doubt the worth of sectional headings? Is it that my change is problematic because two other infoboxes which do not use this template lack the header? Where is it that I've claimed changing the documentation rids us of a bad practice? I'm sorry, but I think my time is better spent elsewhere; I won't fall prey to your ownership-fuelled wikilawyering. Alakzi (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Embedding

Whenever I embed this template, I seem to get a line of colour above the embedded bit (see, e.g. Derby Cathedral). What am I doing wrong? Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Add a new designation

Please add "Dhaka" for List of Old Dhaka Heritage Sites. Mehedi Abedin 21:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 21 July 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

At line 94 (after

 | free3value  = {{{designation5_free3value|}}}
 }}}}

, please add the following, similar to what I did in Template:Infobox designation list/sandbox:


| rowclass6 = mergedtoprow
|   header6 = {{#if:{{{designation6|}}}|{{Infobox designation list/entry
 | designation = {{{designation6|}}}
 | offname     = {{{designation6_offname|}}}
 | type        = {{{designation6_type|}}}
 | criteria    = {{{designation6_criteria|}}}
 | feature     = {{{designation6_feature|}}}
 | date        = {{{designation6_date|}}}
 | delisted    = {{{delisted6_date|}}}
 | partof      = {{{designation6_partof|}}}
 | number      = {{{designation6_number|}}}
 | free1name   = {{{designation6_free1name|}}}
 | free1value  = {{{designation6_free1value|}}}
 | free2name   = {{{designation6_free2name|}}}
 | free2value  = {{{designation6_free2value|}}}
 | free3name   = {{{designation6_free3name|}}}
 | free3value  = {{{designation6_free3value|}}}
 }}}}

Ergo Sum has recently updated Template:Infobox historic site here to allow for up to six designations, but that template relies on Template:Infobox designation list. The latter template does not have parameters for a sixth designation, which created an error on the Statue of Liberty article. Epicgenius (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 21 October 2024

It is requested that an edit be made to the template-protected template at Template:Designation/colour2.
(edit · history · last · links · sandbox · edit sandbox · sandbox history · sandbox last edit · sandbox diff · transclusion count · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately.

Edit requests to template-protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus. If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template. Consider making changes first to the template's sandbox before submitting an edit request. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request. When the request has been completed or denied, please add the |answered=yes parameter to deactivate the template.

I would like for the Heritage New Zealand Historic Area designation to be added. An example article is Myers Park, Auckland and an example of the designation is here: [5] it should be identical to the current Heritage New Zealand listings but state 'Historic Area' instead. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does this involve a change to Template:Designation/colour2? If so, please specify the colour code to be used — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]