Template talk:Infobox Software open source
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Infobox proposal
This is a proposed infobox for open source programs. See it in use on iRATE radio. The current version uses CVS check-ins in lines of code as a metric of participation for determining the "leading developers". I use StatCvs to generate the reports.
This metric can be problematic where large scale conversions take place (e.g. new code layout, documentation format). I see no way to account for this type of change. Should we scrap the "leading developers" rank altogether, or is there some way to improve it? An alternative would be a "creator(s)" field, but that doesn't take into account that a program creator might quit after 3 months, with someone else taking over for the next 3 years. Other rankings would be subjective and hard to qualify. I find it important to have some information about the developers of the software, because this is often in the dark and hard to find (e.g. for iRATE I did some realname googling based on the sourceforge account names).
The lines of code graphic used on iRATE radio is, I think, useful but optional. We probably need a "How to read this plot" text for it, any takers? It too is generated by StatCvs. Here I have the problem that a code may change from module to module - any way to account for that without too much hacking? Update: Here's a workaround for that problem.
As a guideline, I suggest that developer names that appear in more than one project should be wikified. Only then it becomes possible to explore this relation through "What links here".--Eloquence*
- Before you implement, give consideration to the Wikipedia stylesheet, i.e. (see right):
| Infobox Software open source | ||
|---|---|---|
| {{{image}}} | ||
| Information | ||
| Purpose | {{{purpose}}} | |
| License | {{{license}}} | |
| Programming language | {{{language}}} | |
| Platform | {{{platform}}} | |
| Leading developers by code check-ins |
{{{developers}}} | |
| History and progress | ||
| First code check-in | {{{firstcheckin}}} | |
| {{{statistics}}} | ||
- I've also made a few other fixes, such as colspan="3" -> colspan="2", and defining the width in em's not %. Hope this all helps. ed g2s • talk 09:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ed's not interested in dialogue, only in convincing everyone that everything must be homogenous and conforming, and that there is no wiggle room for varying the style of the presentation to any degree, regardless on how the style clashes with the coloring of the presented information. There is nothing that mandates the use of toccolours, and by forcing it into the infoboxes he's stifling community involvement. Carry on in creating the infobox you feel you need to make and don't be inhibited by a non-existent style mandate that not everyone finds appealing. - UtherSRG 18:58, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
