Template talk:Infobox knot

This template was considered for deletion on 2020 April 6. The result of the discussion was "do not merge".

This is the template used by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Knots.

I'm skeptical about including the efficiency figure in the template. At least, it needs an article to discuss the concept and a clear way of citing the source of the figure.

I also think it would be nice to include the ABOK number of knots in the template. Johan Andersson 07:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm thinking Origin, Typical use and Caveat may be better suited to deal with in the running text.

I don't really like the efficiency figure, either. Few knot articles have one. ABOK numbers would be a good idea if we had more information on ABOK itself. --Smack (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will third the efficiency concern (see Knot#Strength for some caveats (which I still need to add references for -- it's very high on the list :)) A month or so ago I expanded the ABOK article some and after peppering articles I've been editing with ABOK reference numbers... So I think it high-time to add that field. See below for a few other issues I've noticed with this template. --Dfred 01:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting issues?

I've seen some strange formatting problems where the horizontal rule from article sections get drawn through the infobox. I've also seen multiple section "edit" links getting pushed down to where the info box ends. I haven't yet done testing to determine which browsers show this issue (unfortunately the one I'm using now, Mozilla suite, doesn't) to help narrow down whether it's an issue with the template itself or with some browser rendering/fonts/etc. Anybody else encountered these problems with this template? Thanks. --Dfred 01:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I found an example of the section edit link problem on Carrick bend. With Mozilla 1.7.13/Linux it is showing the first three section edit links all bunched together right at place on the page where the infobox ends. --Dfred 21:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, after recent major edits to Carrick bend, the problem no longer shows up. --Dfred 14:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a related issue with firefox that in certain instances will place photos over the infobox with text and lines were placed behind it if the gallary tag is used. If the following method is used it is all placed over the infobox.

{|
|[[Image:Name1.jpg|thumb|none|150px|1. Sub title]]
|[[Image:Name2.jpg|thumb|none|150px|2. Sub Title]]
|[[Image:NameN.jpg|thumb|none|150px|N. Sub Title]]
|}
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikipedianYknOK (talk • contribs) 01:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Applicability of this template to all knotting articles?

In some of the knot articles I've expanded of (e.g. Rolling hitch, Constrictor knot) I've actually removed the infobox due to the formatting issues noted above, as well it taking up valuable screen space which I preferred to use for specific illustrations in the top half of the article. Does it make sense that a template like this only be recommended for articles which are between stub status and "major article" where all the information is covered in a normal Wikipedia article format? Are class-of-article specific templates done for other projects? --Dfred 01:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Handling multiple Ashley numbers

A few knots have multiple ABOK entries and it might be good to have a standard way to list more than one. Perhaps the convention could be a comma seperated list in ascending order, bolding the numbers of the main (or otherwise substantive) entries. For buntline hitch this would be something like: #55, #1229, #1711, #1838, #1847, #1918, #2408

If I'm parsing the current template properly, it appears there's a static '#' which might need to be removed to allow lists rather than single references... --Dfred 21:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the '#' is static but easily removed. Should it be? Dddstone 11:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, looks like it's gone. Thanks. What do you think about removing the "No(s)." from the ABOK label, for a cleaner look? And regarding differentiating the "main" ABOK entries for a knot, now that I see this in a couple of articles I'm thinking using bold may be too much. Italics is somewhat less distracting to the eye. (#55, #1229, #1711, #1838, #1847, #1918, #2408) Thoughts? --Dfred 16:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After more time with this, and after the other changes in the template, I think I do actually prefer bolding main entries. --Dfred 16:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template change comments

I have recently made several changes to the template. Comments? Dddstone 13:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think they are improvements, especially the conditionals to hide blank fields. I'm thinking for articles where the more detailed fields (e.g. jamming, origin) are covered in the article itself, those fields should be cleared. This may begin to address the concerns I raised in the Applicability query above about the infoboxes taking up otherwise valuable space without providing much additional substantive information. In the case of a full-fledged article, the infobox might consist of only the "core" fields, perhaps name/names, type, related knots, and (perhaps) ABOK numbers.

Also, I was poking through Wikipedia:Infobox templates and noticed most of them don't have lines dividing the table within the infobox. This tends to give them a cleaner, less "heavy" look. Just a thought... We'd obviously want to maintain readability. --Dfred 15:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the heavy table lines in the template and the other cleanup!

So here are a few other issues I've noticed now that this template has been applied to many more pages:

I am still not convinced that the inclusion of this template contributes significantly to articles which already contain nearly complete information on the knot in question. In several cases its addition has disrupted the formatting of the article: not preserving necessary captions for the "header" images (e.g. Constrictor knot) and displacing images down the right side of the page which are intended to supplement specific sections. But, mostly, it's just the issue of redundant (and possibily over-simplified) information taking up valuable screen real estate in an otherwise full-fledged article.
Is it a good idea to force the infobox "Category" field to determine which Wikipedia Category: the article is in? Some knots might fall into multiple categories. And in many cases it may be redundant to force this template field to be populated -- for instance in the case of hitch knots which actually contain the word "hitch" in their name.
The current settings in the template cause images which have a high vertical aspect ratio to appear much too large. (e.g. Taut-line hitch). Either a maximum vertical size in pixels should be specified (if possible) or the horizontal extent should be reduced to allow for normal aspect ratio pictures, whether horizontal or vertical, to appear at a reasonable size.

All that said, a good template like this does allow for the quick improvement stub articles by providing a simple framework for new information. Thanks for the continued work... --Dfred 21:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: 1. I have added a "caption" field to the template so that that information won't be lost. As far as "displacing images down the right side of the page which are intended to supplement specific sections", that may possibly be the result of my throwing the existing (only) image into the "image" field, where it might be nicer to have a cropped version of the completed knot in the infobox and the current image farther down in the article. As far as redundancy goes, you are not really required to fill any field if it were decided that doing so resulted in an visually unappealing arrangement.

re: 2. I believe that autocategorization is beneficial (well, of course, I added it). If necessary, we could easily add "type2" for a second category for knots that fall into multiple cats. See above comment on redundancy, although one would need to manually add the proper category (e.g.- Hitch knots); however, there are a few knots whose names are not indicative of (or contradict) their type.

re: 3. that is now fixed, and can be adjusted

Dddstone 00:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for the caption field. I think normal image captions use a slightly smaller font and appear immediately under the image rather than with a gap. They are also not usually centered. (Though I'm not sure whether left justification would look reasonable or not in the table format.) Anyway, minor things, but might want to play around to see if a more standard look can be achieved. Both Buntline hitch and Constrictor knot have captions for the infobox image now if you want to look at live examples. --Dfred 07:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding #2 again, I do think a "type2" field should probably be added. The Surgeon's knot should be categorized both as a bend and binding knot, and there are other knots which straddle categories. --Dfred 19:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added "type2", the ability to have a second (auto)category. Dddstone 12:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]