Template talk:Infobox software

WikiData issues

Hi, this template only quite sparingly uses references to wikidata which should be fixed to avoid issues with out-of-sync data because of manual copy and paste work.

Like e.g. the software license is not pulled from wikidata.

And the project website is incorrectly pulled from wikidata. It appears data25 always uses the very first entry it finds instead of the one marked as preferred or having an appropriate "start/end time" set. E.g. when a project migrated its homepage from one domain to another. Or moved the main project page from Sourceforge to GitHub or CodeBerg.

Can someone please update this template to use WikiData wherever possible, please? Agowa (talk) 04:31, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

@Agowa Hi, in fact some Wikipedias like Arabic version pulls all Infobox data from Wikidata.

• For example see https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%AC%D9%88%D8%AC%D9%84_%D9%83%D8%B1%D9%88%D9%85

In my opinion, this strategy (which is possibly yours also) is not good because we should change "Wikidata computer readable data" into "human readable" one, and apply some style and linking to the text. Thanks, Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 05:49, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

But your strategy leads to a lot of copy-paste errors. Like I recently fixed incorrect license information being shown because of such overwrites...

In general the WikiData objects already have the human readable versions attached. So when the templates are properly built they'll pull in the correct human readable version already. And for the infobox there is not much styling to be done. It is literally just a table with data anyway... Agowa (talk) 05:55, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

You are right about some Infobox items, but not all of them, because some of them really need human-readable style. Additionally, another problem is that pulling all data from Wikidata makes that vulnerable to vandalism. Suppose someone changes Website item of Google Chrome at Wikidata to his own website, and then it is applied to all versions of Wikipedia without anyone be warned. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 06:09, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Finally, I should note that many infoboxes of Arabic Wikipedia, which implement "Wikidata pulling Infobox strategy", lack quality. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 06:16, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Then the page at wikidata needs to be protected. The vandalism argument doesn't hold up as putting static and incorrect data into the overwrites is way harder to spot than it being incorrect in only one place.

Also such overwrites become outdated real fast. And then you're the one serving the incorrect data while it has already been corrected within wikidata.

And I said wherever possible. That at least should apply for way more fields. Like e.g. the License as it is literally just a link to the license anyway.

Finally not to mention that the current template sometimes overwrites the things people put into the "overwrite fields" within an article with the data it pulled from wikidata (didn't fully debug that one, just deleted the stale data within the article as it was incorrect anyway) and sometimes it does the opposite. Agowa (talk) 07:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Even for License argument, please pay attention to License item of Google Chrome article, it is:

Proprietary freeware, based on open-source components

Whereas its Wikidata entry is https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q777?#P275 rendered as:

freeware

So your idea about pulling Licese from Wikidata is not applicable. Can you make such sentence by Wikidata? Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 07:54, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

On the second point which was ignored in the rest of the thread, I'll chime in that I noticed the issue as well. Setting website = {{official url}}, which does respect Wikidata ranks, vs omitting it and allowing the template to follow its coded default behavior can different results, which seems bizarre. If we are pulling from Wikidata, the only reasonable thing to do is to prefer the highest-ranked value rather than the positionally earliest value. Astro.furball (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 November 2025

I request that more module parameters be added to this template, as following:

−

| data99 = {{{module|}}}

+

| data99 = {{{module|}}}| data128 = {{{module2|}}}| data129 = {{{module3|}}}| data130 = {{{module4|}}}| data131 = {{{module5|}}}| data132 = {{{module6|}}}

Juwan (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

in the (current) line 122, these new parameter names (module2, module3, module4, module5, module6) need also to added. Juwan (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Where are these parameters needed? Also, I have fixed the numbering above so that there is still room for new parameters. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jonesey95 these parameters are needed in for example, the article for Kasane Teto (currently broken, see also Template talk:Infobox character). Juwan (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

oh, you did see and did fix. how nice! Juwan (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 27 January 2026

Please add a publisher(s) field to this infobox.

TikTok's qualified divestiture is believed to be completed with ByteDance's ownership stake shrinking massively, and with TikTok USDS becoming a joint venture. So it is needed to express in the infobox that although ByteDance continues to develop source code, the joint venture audits it and can reject changes for the U.S. market.

I am on mobile right now. I cannot find any edit so far where the parameter was added or removed but the template appears to have the publisher field in the documentation. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 05:45, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Use |author=, documented as Name of the original author(s) or publisher(s) of the software. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

That doesn't seem right. ByteDance was the original author of the TikTok source code, not the current publisher in the U.S. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 15:34, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I think that nuance situation should be expressed in the article with sources, rather then in an infobox. Nux (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:53, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

"[...] there is already another parameter for that use."

Under the 'Initial Release' field description, it states "In case the software is still in development and has not reached its RTM stage, please ignore this field; do not use this field to specify the release date of the first preview/test release of the software; there is already another parameter for that use."

I see no other parameter for that use (I'm not a coder, so I may be in the weeds on that). At minimum, it would be helpful if the description stated what that other parameter is. If there is no other parameter, then perhaps the restrictions on use of the field should be less strict. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:09, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Logo size parameter

I was wondering what the logo size parameter was supposed to represent exactly. I understand that it would be a certain number of pixels that relates to the size of the logo used for display in the Infobox of an article. However, the description is lacking detail. Three questions came to mind when I considered this parameter:

1. Is the size of the logo as it appears on the article page, or is it the 'nominal' size that appears after you click on the logo on Wikimedia Commons?.
2. Is the number a single figure that is representative of both the width and height of the logo?
3. What is the exact *purpose* for this parameter? Does this number *do* anything for logo rendering in the article, or is it purely a kind of 'meta' data stored to the Wikipedia database, just in case some other website, program, AI system, etc. may find it useful somehow? Thanks.

Tristanlbailey2 (talk) 09:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

|logo_size= sends an image size in pixels to Module:InfoboxImage. See the detailed help page for information about how this image size is used. If a single px value is sent, it's the width of the image that should be rendered in your browser. For example, the logo at OpenLDAP renders at 305px wide, as requested in the infobox, and the logo at BlueJ renders at 96px wide. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:52, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@Jonesey95 Your answer was very helpful. Thanks for the explanation. Tristanlbailey2 (talk) 06:50, 25 June 2026 (UTC)