FANDOM


  • Aiihuan
    Aiihuan closed this thread because:
    Old thread.
    13:33, January 18, 2018

    Hi!

    Yesterday we've released a small update to Infobox Builder. Here are the changes:

    •  users can switch to source mode from infobox builder
    • reworked the right panel to always show hints and help content
    • renamed save to publish
    • fixed infobox migration flow

    As always, you can play with it on communitytest.wikia.com.

    Also get prepared as the next update will be slightly bigger ;)

    IB Update1

      Loading editor
    • users can switch to source mode from infobox builder

      Mostly works as advertised. I'm not sure why you prompt the user to save the changes though, as long as you drop the user in the wikitext editor with unsaved changes they can discard or save changes with it.

      reworked the right panel to always show hints and help content

      The big icons on the panel could probably use some tooltips.

      The  workflow is kind of odd with the right panel. Just for testing I added around 10 rows, and it took a long time to remove them click, find trash icon, delete. USing keyboard shortcuts "ins" for row insert, and "del" for item deletion would be more intuitive.

      Another issue is that the header is the wrong tag to set collapsing options especially when it arbitrarily chooses the group it is in. Maybe when the <group> is introduced this will improve.

        Loading editor
    • I have a problem. If I want to add a infobox it sais: "Choose a infobox" and under there it sais I don't have any infoboxes to choose from.... Plz help me! I don't know what to do!

        Loading editor
    • Amy Long wrote:
      I have a problem. If I want to add a infobox it sais: "Choose a infobox" and under there it sais I don't have any infoboxes to choose from....

      Plz help me! I don't know what to do!

      Hi Amy Long, it's a bug. Infoboxes appear after few hours after creation of the new wiki. We are working on fixing it.

        Loading editor
    • Thank you very much

        Loading editor
    • Has a function to actual edit these been made yet? I think this is an excellent tool and idea for something very commonly created. Infoboxes are a very detailed and unique way of presenting information for wikis only. 

      Perhaps if saw a need for will be created for other types of templates.

        Loading editor
    • Better than before, but I'd still prefer and option in the drop-down from the Edit button to go directly to Source editor mode rather than have the unnecessary step of going into the GUI editor first.

      Also, I'd really, really like to be able to set the data label differently from the parameter name.

      Otherwise, it's a pretty good MVP.

        Loading editor
    • Oh I noticed that if you start with a table-based infobox template and use the GUI editor it just pastes the portable stuff above the original. Is that intentional?

        Loading editor
    • Better, but it still gets stuck on source editor if you've switched to it and you can't go back to Infobox Builder.

        Loading editor
    • Chimera-gui wrote: Better, but it still gets stuck on source editor if you've switch to that and you can't go back to Infobox Builder.

      Stuck how? You can just click the template name at the top.

      I suppose a cancel button might be nice.

        Loading editor
    • Shareif wrote: Hi!

      Yesterday we've released a small update to Infobox Builder. Here are the changes:

      •  users can switch to source mode from infobox builder
      • reworked the right panel to always show hints and help content
      • renamed save to publish
      • fixed infobox migration flow

      As always, you can play with it on communitytest.wikia.com.

      Also get prepared as the next update will be slightly bigger ;)

      IB Update1

      That's a good idea to improve it :)!

        Loading editor
    • Looks pretty good!

        Loading editor
    • why am included in this?

        Loading editor
    • It's a highlight. Anyone who signs in on this wiki will get a notification about it.

        Loading editor
    • oh okay.:P

        Loading editor
    • I want it on my wiki, is it on Labs?

        Loading editor
    • Speedit wrote:
      I want it on my wiki, is it on Labs?

      Not just yet. You can try it out on Community Test and Portability Hub, though.

        Loading editor
    • Will users who set their preferred editor to "Source editor" have to go through the UI (and an additional server request) to get there? I'm sure that would annoy a lot of people, myself included.

        Loading editor
    • Fandyllic wrote:

      Chimera-gui wrote: Better, but it still gets stuck on source editor if you've switch to that and you can't go back to Infobox Builder.

      Stuck how? You can just click the template name at the top.

      I suppose a cancel button might be nice.

      What are you even talking about? When you click the edit button after switching to source editor from the Infobox Builder, you cannot switch back to the Infobox Builder.

        Loading editor
    • i'm Not Into THAT. (Sorry)

        Loading editor
    • Not into what?

        Loading editor
    • Speedit wrote:
      I want it on my wiki, is it on Labs?

      Hey Speedit,

      Not yet! We are working hard on making it available on Labs. Should be there within next few weeks (ups spoiler).

        Loading editor
    • DarthKitty wrote:
      Will users who set their preferred editor to "Source editor" have to go through the UI (and an additional server request) to get there? I'm sure that would annoy a lot of people, myself included.

      It won't generally be a problem because most handcrafted templates are likely to be incompatible with it, and if people really want the source editor then can always use the "?useeditor=source" switch. Perhaps they'll make a change to the edit dropdown to include the "true" source editor, just like ve & "re". Although creating a brand new infobox template with infobox "type" will always pull people into the builder. That could be changed I guess.

        Loading editor
    • Cool! but what if you want a thing where a part of the infobox is divided into two sections vertically?

      like for a country, Predecessors would be on the left, Sucessors would be on the right, and for another section, Coat of arms and a Flag would be on the left and right. 

        Loading editor
    • Chimera-gui wrote:

      Fandyllic wrote:

      Chimera-gui wrote: Better, but it still gets stuck on source editor if you've switch to that and you can't go back to Infobox Builder.

      Stuck how? You can just click the template name at the top.

      I suppose a cancel button might be nice.

      What are you even talking about? When you click the edit button after switching to source editor from the Infobox Builder, you cannot switch back to the Infobox Builder.

      That's not the same thing as "stuck". You also can't go directly to Source Editor, but I didn't call that "stuck in GUI editor".

        Loading editor
    • Dessamator wrote:

      DarthKitty wrote:
      Will users who set their preferred editor to "Source editor" have to go through the UI (and an additional server request) to get there? I'm sure that would annoy a lot of people, myself included.

      It won't generally be a problem because most handcrafted templates are likely to be incompatible with it, and if people really want the source editor then can always use the "?useeditor=source" switch. Perhaps they'll make a change to the edit dropdown to include the "true" source editor, just like ve & "re". Although creating a brand new infobox template with infobox "type" will always pull people into the builder. That could be changed I guess.

      I'm not sure what you mean by "most handcrafted templates are likely to be incompatible". Wouldn't it defeat the purpose of building this tool—a WYSIWYG editor for portable infoboxes—if it didn't work with hand-built ones?

      [I]f people really want the source editor then can always use the "?useeditor=source" switch.

      That sounds like bad UX to me. Users shouldn't have to do extra work to access basic functionality.

      Perhaps they'll make a change to the edit dropdown to include the "true" source editor, just like ve & "re".

      With the VisualEditor at least (not sure what "re" stands for), the user's preferences are respected. Since my preferred editor is set to "Source editor", when I click the "edit" button I go there. If I want to use the VisualEditor, I can do so by clicking the dropdown. That's how the (new) Infobox Builder should work. :)

      EDIT: "re" probably stands for "Rich-text editor", a.k.a. the "Classic editor" or "that thing that everyone hated". I think it acted like the VisualEditor when your preferred editor was set to "Source editor", but there was no dropdown option to use it.

        Loading editor
    • I'm not sure what you mean by "most handcrafted templates are likely to be incompatible". Wouldn't it defeat the purpose of building this tool—a WYSIWYG editor for portable infoboxes—if it didn't work with hand-built ones?

      Well, I meant that currently they aren't compatible because the tool seems to mark the templates it created and only allows the GUI editor for those. Eventually all portable templates will possibly be edited with the GUI. In any case, a good GUI completely eliminates the need for a source editor. Few people know how to use the markup to generate a PDF document for example.

      That sounds like bad UX to me. Users shouldn't have to do extra work to access basic functionality.

      A worse UX is one  with many options for a single action. Editing is a single action, whether you do it visually or using source. The more options, the worse a software tends to become and with more complex code and bugs to deal with. In fact, currently, Wikia has 5 different editors.

      Since my preferred editor is set to "Source editor", when I click the "edit" button I go there. If I want to use the VisualEditor, I can do so by clicking the dropdown. That's how the (new) Infobox Builder should work. :)

      That's not always the case, for instance, despite choosing the VisualEditor, in some namespaces it can't work properly, so it falls back to the source editor. When you add a category using the category tool at the bottom of every page, you aren't pulled into the source editor instead. So there are exceptions to the rule.

      Although for consistency sake they may decide to follow the preferences.

        Loading editor
    • Dessamator wrote:

      In any case, a good GUI completely eliminates the need for a source editor.

      Ahh the mythical "good GUI"... I expect they'll use the time machine to go back in time to create this good GUI.

        Loading editor
    • Dessamator wrote:

      A worse UX is one with many options for a single action. Editing is a single action, whether you do it visually or using source. The more options, the worse a software tends to become and with more complex code and bugs to deal with. In fact, currently, Wikia has 5 different editors.

      No, a worse UX is funneling a user to the worst possible choice. And editing is not a single action. If it were, we would all write everything in machine language and damn all those folks who don't want to learn it! Binary for all!

      The problem with editors at Wikia is their inability to finish a project and unwillingness to kill what should be killed.

        Loading editor
    • Dessamator wrote: In any case, a good GUI completely eliminates the need for a source editor. Few people know how to use the markup to generate a PDF document for example.

      PDFs are super complicated according to Wikipedia's article on the subject (this section in particular), so I don't think they make a good comparison to Portable Infoboxes. I don't think a good GUI completely eliminates the need for a source editor, either. If that were the case, nobody would ever use the command line. That's kind of off-topic, though. :p

      I think my main point is, Wikia already checks my preferences to see which editor I want to use. They do that each time I click the "edit" button. They should keep doing it with this new tool.

        Loading editor
    • Fandyllic wrote:

      No, a worse UX is funneling a user to the worst possible choice. And editing is not a single action. If it were, we would all write everything in machine language and damn all those folks who don't want to learn it! Binary for all!

      The problem with editors at Wikia is their inability to finish a project and unwillingness to kill what should be killed.

      The problem is not entirely with their inability to finish a project. The problem is  the fact that wikitext is not well specified, and allows all sorts of hacky workarounds and pure bugs that people depend on. One simple example is the fact that you can create unbalanced html, but putting bits and pieces into several templates. It is like chasing a moving target whose true identity nobody knows.

      The main issue is that the concept of "wrong" wikitext doesn't exist, so anything a GUI doesn't allow can also be considered by some as "wrong". A good frontend depends on a good backend. 

        Loading editor
    • Thank you for interesting discussion and loads of interesting feedback. Of course we want to make editing infoboxes as easy as possible while still providing robust functionality. It's a hard balancing act to perform that's why we decided to move with small steps :)

        Loading editor
    • ^

        Loading editor
    • Nice blog post I am interested to see how this will change the wikis.

        Loading editor
    • Is there a way to completely disable it ? I'm sorry but I don't like it at all. And opening it and then opening source mod is way longer than directly opening source mode as before.

      EDIT : Ok source mode doesn't even work for me. It seems like I have to change my infobox type for something else if I don't want to use your… thing.

        Loading editor
    • Well, this is a good feature - if used properly.

      But, sometimes, you can't exactly build an infobox this way. For, sometimes, it requires a different approach to make an infobox, like fragmenting it in pieces.

      The only thing that could avoid it is to change the type of the template first, then edit, and change the type back. I tried to go into source mode, but it took too long to open the editor.

        Loading editor
    • Energy X wrote:

      But, sometimes, you can't exactly build an infobox this way. For, sometimes, it requires a different approach to make an infobox, like fragmenting it in pieces.

      Which, for the record, along with meta-templates and transfomers (when the result is an infobox) should be avoided from a portability point of view.

        Loading editor
    • I noticed that there isn't an option to have infobox images as the wiki's category images. But this really messes with a wiki that has only one image in a few hundred chapter articles. And fairuse restrictions with stuff like manga chapters or newly published novellas/serials can easily result in just the infobox image on the article ... and no image in the category.

        Loading editor
    • Speedit wrote: I noticed that there isn't an option to have infobox images as the wiki's category images. But this really messes with a wiki that has only one image in a few hundred chapter articles. And fairuse restrictions with stuff like manga chapters or newly published novellas/serials can easily result in just the infobox image on the article ... and no image in the category.

      This isn't really an infobox issue, most likely, but if an image for categories could be pinned in any way, that would be a nice feature.

        Loading editor
    • I think the category image should be the first image on the page - but there appears to be some wikis who'd like the first gallery image to be the category image, and some like mine who'd prefer an infobox for it. This issue has forced me to pull the PI rollout for a third time - having no image in the category for many categories is a deal-breaker for me even though the PIs are a massive visual and code improvement with the right customisation.

        Loading editor
    • Speedit wrote:
      I think the category image should be the first image on the page - but there appears to be some wikis who'd like the first gallery image to be the category image, and some like mine who'd prefer an infobox for it. This issue has forced me to pull the PI rollout for a third time - having no image in the category for many categories is a deal-breaker for me even though the PIs are a massive visual and code improvement with the right customisation.

      I'm not sure to what extent it is still accurate but the images aren't picked based on location, see :

      Although long ago staff member ShareIf, mentioned that the first portable infobox images is showcased in category exhibition[1] [2] . But I guess the "quality" of the image might still affect it. Also, it may take some time for the cache to update, so that may be the reason for that.

      Edit: Some clarification & corrections.

        Loading editor
    • It takes ages to publish for some reason, is this also a bug?

        Loading editor
    • I was imagining that the criteria on Kirkburn's blog are accurate in that they are limits to the image selection. The best and simplest way to automate the selection of infobox images is by proximity of HTML code to the article header - the allusion to a similar function is made by Kirkburn in the comments section of the same blog. [1]

      I also appreciated the potential for a caching when I discovered this for three days before the rollback. The potential for no image if the infobox works as it does is probably just a problem on my wiki - look at this massive category of one-image articles. [2] Kodansha is pretty easy to annoy by overreaching fairuse so that's why there's only one.

      EDIT: Fixed link

        Loading editor
    • Shareif wrote:
      Hi!

      Yesterday we've released a small update to Infobox Builder. Here are the changes:

      •  users can switch to source mode from infobox builder
      • reworked the right panel to always show hints and help content
      • renamed save to publish
      • fixed infobox migration flow

      As always, you can play with it on communitytest.wikia.com.

      Also get prepared as the next update will be slightly bigger ;)

      Apparently, new infoboxes created with the builder only get the basic source editor when one switches. They don't go back to the newer code-editor. Is this by design or a bug?

        Loading editor
    • I think it's a design. But now that it's gone global, I don't like how the code is at all.

        Loading editor
    • Annabeth and Percy wrote:
      I think it's a design. But now that it's gone global, I don't like how the code is at all.

      I doubt that, it randomly seems to go between the old source editor, and the "xml-editor" with syntax highlighting depending on how you load the page.

        Loading editor
    • Dessamator wrote:

      Apparently, new infoboxes created with the builder only get the basic source editor when one switches. They don't go back to the newer code-editor. Is this by design or a bug?

      It's a bug until they say it isn't. I would report it.

        Loading editor
    • So I guess Wikia decided that previous builds were too good, or something, because this version is atrocious. Rather than grumbling about the badness of change, however, let's have some specfic criticism. To test the Infobox Builder out, I made a new infobox on my test wiki.

      ponUmAN.png

      There are four new buttons on the bottom of the editor:

      • The first is a redundant link to Fandom. Because the whole thing is wrapped in an iframe, the page will be thinner and have duplicated content unless you open it in a new tab
      • The second is a link to the current wiki's main page. Unfortunately, it only breaks the editor unless you open it in a new tab
      • The third has an image of a magnifying glass, but it does absolutely nothing
      • The fourth has a "hamburger icon", but it doesn't do anything either

      Conspicuously missing is the "source mode" button. You can get there by changing the template type to something other than "Infobox", but that feels like a hack to me. "B-but Darth, a good GUI completely eliminates the need for a source editor, so nobody will ever want to use that old piece of trash again!" TotallyNotDessamator has a point: for the majority of users, a good GUI will deprecate more complicated tools. However, this iteration of the Infobox Builder is far from "good".

      For example, the Infobox Builder is still incapable of handling horizontal groups (i.e. <group layout="horizontal">…</group>). You also cannot change the parameter names (source attributes) for... well, anything. There's no way to <format>…</format> data, and you can't add a <default>…</default> value either. There are a ton of other missing features, so you pretty much have to use a source editor... which the folks at Wikia are apparently trying to get rid of!

      Fortunately, the Infobox Builder doesn't even activate if any of those features are present, so most existing stuff should be safe. If you're working on a new infobox, you can use the template type hack to keep this new tool away. If your situation is especially dire, you could add something like:

      <title source="name">
          <!-- This disables the Infobox Builder for now. -->
          <format>{{{name}}}</format>
      </title>

      ...but don't expect that to work forever.

      To summarize, the Infobox Builder is still buggy and missing a lot of features. It really shouldn't be globally available yet, and the fact that there's still no opt-out means that ordinary users, the people who will benefit the most from this tool once it's finished, have to use roundabout tricks to accomplish basic tasks.

        Loading editor
    • DarthKitty, excellent post. It makes one wonder if there is any QA involved with this feature.

        Loading editor
    • Hi, thank you for all the feedback.

      The nav at the bottom has nothing to do with infobox builder and is a navigation experiment that got out of control a bit. Only small percentage of users is seeing this and it was not our intention to show it withing IB. Thank you for helping us find it!

      I'll dig into the source mode editor case.

        Loading editor
    • Haha, for a minute I saw the previous build again—the one with the source mode button. I guess this is part of an A/B test...? If that's the case, I'm really glad I took a screenshot!

      EDIT: ninja'd a bit. Turns out the source mode button was hidden underneath the navigation experiment Shareif mentioned. XD

        Loading editor
    • FYI, buttons that do nothing should either be grayed out or otherwise have some indication they don't work. Feel free to release pre-alpha stuff, but either warn people what to expect or get ready for lots of bug reports.

        Loading editor
    • The current version is just the first iteration, just like it was done with the infobox markup. Personally, I prefer them to release features slowly like this and get feedback rather than releasing a huge product that simply becomes too cumbersome to change.

      To take a simple example, Micro$oft has a lot of money and beta / alpha testers. Yet in one of the presentations of windows 95 or 98 if I recall correctly, the CEO actually triggered a big BSOD(Blue screen of death)[1] .

      No amount of testing will likely ever uncover all bugs. That's a simple fact, in fact some bugs might actually be useful and repurposed.

      The current GUI is good enough for beginners in my opinion, and  may be improved in time to empower advanced users too.

        Loading editor
    • The Infobox Builder is still missing basic functionality, stuff that even beginners will be interested in. For example, you cannot add columns (i.e. <group layout="horizontal">…</group>) without dropping into source mode. In other words, it's a beta feature.

      I think that's okay. As long as Wikia keeps working on it and adding features, I see no reason not to make it public. However, I think it was a mistake to globally enable this tool as early as they did. They probably should have moved it to Special:WikiFeatures first.

      (And they still need to let advanced users opt out, FFS.)

        Loading editor
    • I disagree that it shouldn't have been enabled globally. There are probably thousands of optional features and preferences in an operating system, yet few users know of them, and fewer care. Although, I do agree that more interface tools would be helpful. However, the "normal" way of creating these infoboxes requires considerable trial and error and expertise that veteran wiki users take for granted.

      Just as a simple example, to make a basic infobox using the old approach, you need to know wiki markup for tables, images, and  links, basic CSS knowledge of inline styling, and some knowledge of template markup, and mostly importantly a lot of crazy wikitext quirks.

      Some users take that for granted, but I'm 100% sure that there isn't a single user except maybe the developers who created that markup that will get all of that right on the first few tries. Yet now it is possible to create a portable infobox on the very first try. As far as making it optional, I'd suggest using S:C for that.

      Given that the source mode is still accessible, there is basically no disadvantage of keeping it as the default. Especially because currently it fails to load for templates created before the builder was introduced (as far as I know).

        Loading editor
    • If these things manage to work properly then I don't think we would have issue, although it would be nice if they added more customizable things in order to make it more nicer in appearance.

        Loading editor
    • Dessamator wrote: The current version is just the first iteration, just like it was done with the infobox markup. Personally, I prefer them to release features slowly like this and get feedback rather than releasing a huge product that simply becomes too cumbersome to change.

      To take a simple example, Micro$oft has a lot of money and beta / alpha testers. Yet in one of the presentations of windows 95 or 98 if I recall correctly, the CEO actually triggered a big BSOD(Blue screen of death).

      No amount of testing will likely ever uncover all bugs. That's a simple fact, in fact some bugs might actually be useful and repurposed.

      The current GUI is good enough for beginners in my opinion, and  may be improved in time to empower advanced users too.

      Darth, although I understand the point you are trying to make, the comparison between a huge OS release and the almost minuscule feature releases that Wikia does isn't a good comparison.

        Loading editor
    • I think it should have been globally enabled, but maybe not as soon.

        Loading editor
    • Small bug with the infobox builder. I hit the "Title" button, but nothing happened. No additional rows appeared. I clicked it a few times just in case it was freezing or something, but nothing. So I ignored it for then, but now, using the infobox, there are 6 title fields! Obviously it added the titles, but the GUI didn't display them, so I can't use the GUI to delete the fields, give them an informative name, or re-order them. Maybe they weren't supposed to display on the GUI and everyone reading this thinks I'm an idiot, but hey, it would be nice if they did display so we could at least re-order and delete them as necessary, without having to go to Source Mode.

        Loading editor
    • It would be nice for it to have the option to add boxes like these:

      Predessesorsucessor
      and you can add pie charts (or a seperate pie chart thing) for the infobox.
        Loading editor
    • Squirrel719 wrote: It would be nice for it to have the option to add boxes like these:

      Predessesorsucessor
      and you can add pie charts (or a seperate pie chart thing) for the infobox.

      And why can't you?

        Loading editor
    • Shareif wrote:
      Hi!

      Yesterday we've released a small update to Infobox Builder. Here are the changes:

      •  users can switch to source mode from infobox builder
      • reworked the right panel to always show hints and help content
      • renamed save to publish
      • fixed infobox migration flow

      As always, you can play with it on communitytest.wikia.com.

      Also get prepared as the next update will be slightly bigger ;)

      IB Update1

      How do I change the label to the designated edit i want I don't see source editor when I make me Wikia

        Loading editor
    • Dewelr wrote:

      How do I change the label to the designated edit i want I don't see source editor when I make me Wikia

      You can't currently change the paramater name  in the infobox builder (hopefully that's what you're asking). Either click the [ ] brackets at the bottom right, or append "?useeditor=source" to the page link, e.g.

      http://community.wikia.com/wiki/Template:infoboxstuff?action=edit&useeditor=source

        Loading editor
    • There's no custom CSS from Wikia.css on the infobox workflow, how come?

      EDIT: It appears PortableInfoboxBuilderPreview.css is injected last on the page, to override the wiki's portable infobox CSS. Will locally modify it for now.

        Loading editor
    • Speedit wrote:
      There's no custom CSS from Wikia.css on the infobox workflow, how come?

      EDIT: It appears PortableInfoboxBuilderPreview.css is injected last on the page, to override the wiki's portable infobox CSS. Will locally modify it for now.

      It might be to keep the interface simple and usable. Some wikis go overboard with too many CSS customizations that may render the text unreadable to color blind  or even regular people.

        Loading editor
    • customizations that may render the text unreadable
      

      You can change the technology, who can change the user? I'm sad this is a problem.

        Loading editor
    • The interface isn't meant to be a 1:1 representation of how the infobox will  look (collapsing wouldn't work too well anyway), so I'm not sure why that's a problem. To give an example, what people type in the wikitext editor is not exactly what shows up in a page, and even the preview won't be exact because of javascript, CSS,  ads and mobile / browser issues.

      Anyway, at least it works with the "europa theme", and possibly also in the integrated builder within the visualeditor.

        Loading editor
    • One of my wikias uses an older format for the custom infobox, using a complex code borrowed from another wiki. How can I pull it into the infobox builder to edit it, and maybe update it to make it easier to use, without having to fix the pages the old infobox is already on?

        Loading editor
    • If you want to update it without fixing the pages it's already on, don't use Infobox Builder, because then you have no choice but to update them all since you can't even customize how you would type it on a page for it to work. I'd suggest making a copy of the current one you're using and update that without ruining it until it's customized to your liking. Once it is, without running just copy and paste the coding into the original one, and make sure that the words you would have to type on the page for it to work aren't changed, otherwise it won't shot up.

        Loading editor
    • Alright, with that out of the way, how to I edit an infobox that was made in the builder? Is it given a page after I make it, or do I just have to make the infobox all over again?

        Loading editor
    • Eyeless Karkat wrote: Alright, with that out of the way, how to I edit an infobox that was made in the builder? Is it given a page after I make it, or do I just have to make the infobox all over again?

      Once you create the infobox, you can click the edit button - which brings to the InfoboxBuilder to edit that infobox. There is also an icon in the bottom right corner while you're in the builder to switch to source mode.

        Loading editor
    • Ah, alright, I see it now. So it makes a page for it just like any ordinary template. Wonderful. :)

        Loading editor
    • I have a question:

      Why can't some infoboxes be edited by the builder, take this infobox as an example, it's pretty simple one and I don't see any codes that are not supported by the builder.

      Thanks!

        Loading editor
    • When you first create an infobox it starts as the Infobox Builder, but most change it to the source editor, and once they do that I don't believe they can change it back unless they make a whole new infobox.

        Loading editor
    • See this history , I happened to open it in the Builder then I added a few links there, very simple edits, after I finished my edits, I see the formats are changed, it seemed auto, because I didn't change any of its formating...

       Lots of infoboxes are built in source mode very earily, are you saying that those can never be edited by Builder?

        Loading editor
    • This link appears to launch the builder.

        Loading editor
    • Yes, but you can see in the history the fomating is altered after I opened it in the builder then finished the edit, it's automatic, so I wonder if I make some changes to the infobox that can't be edited by the builder, then they can be opened by the builder?

        Loading editor
    • I tried to copy & paste the source codes of a builder-openable-infobox to replace all codes of a source-mode-only-infobox, it still won't launch the builder :-(

      Would really appricated it if we can reuse the builder after using source, else it doesn't make much scene to upgrade the builder any more if we can't switch it back in the first place.

        Loading editor
    • collapse="open" is the most immediate part that's throwing off the builder. Also, the image inside the group.

      In general, when one first makes an infobox and switches to source, it is the adding of code that the builder doesn't understand that marks it for source editing. It's not just the switching to source.

        Loading editor
    • For what it's worth, by the way: The bold wikitext (the ''') in <label>Level</label> is unnecessary. The label defaults to bold in both the header and the labels.

        Loading editor
    • @FishTank

      Thanks for the experise, I deleted collapse="open" and all ''' in a test infobox, it still won't launch the builder, it's as you said, the added codes upon "switching" are not limited to these.

      I also encountered a wierd bug when editing Infobox_item , for, whatever I added to it, even if it's just a simple link, the page will say something like "not a portable infobox, please use makeup" and stops working afterwards.

        Loading editor
    • Hello, I'm having trouble with the editor, I'm working with Infobox_character.

      When clicking publish a first time, it lags a bit and doesn't save, and when clicking a second time, it gets stuck into Saving your great project ​mode forever and ever; and when I refresh the page due to frustration, I have to go back to re-edit everything from square one.

      Tldr I can't get it to work and it's annoying <3

      ​Any solutions...?

        Loading editor
    • Rather than posting your question in an old thread, please create new thread for it. :)

        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message