Template talk:Infobox OS
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Infobox OS template. |
|
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
"Available in" (language) link should probably go somewhere else
[edit]Currently it links to Natural language which is the neuropsych/linguistics term that basically just refers to human languages. That's a relatively niche article and it should probably link to either Language, or Internationalization and localization, or to nothing at all. Alpyne (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Alpyne:
Done I have removed the link altogether, as it is an Easter Egg no matter what it links to, and should be re-labeled (see below). — HTGS (talk) 04:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Label name for "Available in"
[edit]I propose we rename this label "Languages" or "Languages supported". I don't think this particular field is that suitable for the infobox, but it should not be marketing jargon, even if we want to avoid the confusion between computer and human languages. I think "Languages" is fine, but if anyone's feeling particular, we could easily use "Human languages supported". — HTGS (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- (I say "I propose", but really I'm only looking for objections. If you see a problem with this idea, please say so, or I will just change it.) — HTGS (talk) 04:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Like you said, "language" in a software infobox implies a programming language; at the same time, "human language" sounds awkward and unnecessarily wordy. The current use of "available in" is consistent with other infoboxes such as {{Infobox software}} and {{Infobox website}}. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Don't introduce ambiguity; either keep as available in or change to natural language. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- I’m a little surprised by both responses. The phrase “available in” is far more ambiguous than “language”. Worth remembering that both of these labels are in some sense meaningless without the parameter content, but the label doesn’t display without the content anyway. — HTGS (talk) 04:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
- Editors are expected to reference the template documentation before filling out the parameter, if they are unfamiliar with what is supposed to go in there. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- I am concerned with the reader, not the editor. — HTGS (talk) 02:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Editors are expected to reference the template documentation before filling out the parameter, if they are unfamiliar with what is supposed to go in there. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- I’m a little surprised by both responses. The phrase “available in” is far more ambiguous than “language”. Worth remembering that both of these labels are in some sense meaningless without the parameter content, but the label doesn’t display without the content anyway. — HTGS (talk) 04:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
"List of Languages" dropdown should be merged into main label
[edit]The "List of languages" dropdown list should be moved so that instead of looking like:
Available in 100+ Languages
List of Languages [show]
It looks like
Available in 100+ Languages [show]
The current formatting looks out of place and takes up an additional line for no reason. DeklinCaban (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
"Platform" vs "Instruction Set Architecture"
[edit]The "Platform" field seems to be used more or less exclusively to refer to the supported instruction set architectures (ISAs). I think it would be more clear if the field was labeled "Architectures" or "ISAs", since "platforms" is a more ambiguous term - out of context, "what platform does [OS] run on" might get answers like "embedded and mobile" or "consoles and TVs" whereas "what ISAs does [OS] support" is very clear-cut. DeklinCaban (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)