Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement
(Redirected from Wikipedia:QAI/Infobox)
Fanny Hensel
Fanny Hensel, 1842, by Moritz Daniel Oppenheim
Born
Fanny Mendelssohn

(1805-11-14)14 November 1805
Hamburg
Died14 May 1847(1847-05-14) (aged 41)
Berlin
Occupations
  • Composer
  • Pianist
SpouseWilhelm Hensel
ChildrenSebastian Hensel
FamilyMendelssohn family

The following thoughts were initiated by Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) on 25 June 2013 in response to discussions on the topic.

I dream of the day that the infobox is a simple tool of accessibility.

I think of it as the identity card of an article. It contains some data about the article subject that can be measured and compared, such as dates and places. It does not "represent" the subject, as an identity card does not reflect its holder's thoughts and feelings. The data in the box are useful for quick reference, and for other databases such as Wikidata. Data appear in granular form, dates for example in a format that has year/month/day individually accessible and thus ready to be compared and to be represented in different formats and languages. I believe that no article is "harmed"/"damaged" by an infobox that lets the reader see at a glance at least when and where to locate a subject. The infobox can also be compared to a title page of a book.

Feel free to discuss on the talk page, general thoughts and individual infoboxes. Please stay calm and factual ;)

History

edit

The history of the infobox on Wikipedia is long, so is the history of the "infobox war". Working mostly in Classical music, I didn't see many infoboxes.

I first watched an edit war on an infobox on Samuel Barber. On 11 April 2012 I supported those who found the infobox redundant. Another user replied: "Gerda is, of course, absolutely right that an infobox doesn't contain any info that isn't already present in the article, but it isn't meant to: its purpose is to summarize the info in an "at a glance" way." - I confess that I didn't understand it then. (Read the discussion, all arguments in a nutshell.)

I watched the argument on an infobox for Georg Solti on the day of being TFA, 25 July 2012. The article had an infobox until 14 November 2007. I read: "Infoboxes are part of the site's design. They are to serve readers who are looking for a précis, who are surfing. Seeking to exclude the infobox is akin to wanting some other part of the MediaWiki interface gone, such as the wiki-globe. It would be better to view the infobox as a sibling to the column of stuff to the left of the article. ... Those classes are about generating microformats; metadata. ... It's also simply about reader courtesy and site consistency." "Infoboxes are useful tools that should be encouraged in classical music articles. They sum up the main points of an article, allowing for readers of these articles (such as myself) access to some of the most commonly sought-after material. That they be in standard place in most articles would allow readers an easy go-to place for birth/death dates, places of occupation, and a general synoposis of the individual. I feel some in the classical music wikiproject get offended thinking that infoboxes encourage readers to skip over some admittedly great articles. But those who come here just to see a basic sketch of an individual aren't going to read the article from top to bottom. Those who do that will continue to do so whether or not there is an infobox present. Infoboxes, written correctly (omitting information that cannot be summarized, such as which "period" Beethoven belongs to), offer no drawbacks to an article and quite a few benefits." - I learned some new ideas.

I was present in the beginning of the argument on an infobox for the book Pilgrim at Tinker Creek on 18 September 2012, after it had been TFA, an article that I had watched since I had reviewed it for DYK. I first agreed with the author who didn't want an infobox. One editor said "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database", and the other "It's both", - and that converted me.

Since, I am ready to supply infoboxes, developed {{infobox Bach composition}} with Classical Music and helped developing {{infobox opera}}.

Service

edit

Extracted from the above, an infobox can serve several functions.

Main points

edit

The infobox can sum up the main points of an article in structured format "at a glance". It should contain only sourced facts from the article.

Reader courtesy

edit

Making a quick overview available is a courtesy to any reader.

Site consistency

edit

Infoboxes are present on many articles of Wikipedia, on all levels of quality. A stub that contains just an infobox can be informative, for example "my opera house", Daegu Opera House. Most featured articles come with an infobox.

Microformats

edit

Presenting data in microformats, for example geographic coordinates and calendar events, makes them accessible as metadata to programs, ready for comparisons and calculations independent of a language, and ready to be translated easily to other languages.

Quality standard

edit

Infoboxes are features, along with images and tables, that are wanted for some quality articles, such as "appropriate supporting materials" for class B for Military history. (Added 2 November 2014)

Analysis

edit

Where are the infoboxes?

Also, for any infobox, select "what links here" and then "transclusions".

edit

2013

edit

2016

edit

In a discussion, WhatamIdoing pointed out:

  • Blind users are unable to read, and yet we do count them as "readers" and editors. Some dyslexic readers value infoboxes precisely because it minimizes the need to read a gray blur of text. We also get feedback from people who struggle with English, who prefer infoboxes because they don't have read sentences (or paragraphs, or more, depending upon which specific fact is being sought). This isn't necessarily an argument for or against an infobox in this specific article, but I think it is important to remember that different people get information from Wikipedia in different ways. 1
  • I agree that all the important facts can't be squeezed into an infobox. But from the POV of a reader who is in search of an individual, simple fact, e.g., "Where was Holst born?", it is certainly true that "the only fact that is important to me at the moment" could easily be placed in an infobox. Right now, to find Holst's birthplace, you have to search through 400 words first. So imagine that you don't actually care why Holst is awesome. Imagine that you really only want to know if he is a potential subject for the homework that your history-of-music teacher ordered on "Dead Composers from England". And imagine that you can't read English easily. From that POV, an infobox would be very helpful in meeting your needs. Or perhaps you're looking for a list of his compositions, which appears halfway through the article, and again in the navbox, which is invisible on mobile devices (=about half of our readers). Having that at the top would be handy for that reader.
    More generally: are we at risk of imposing a single narrative on readers? Is there only one Correct Way™ to use an article? Are we starting to think that All True Readers want to know the whole story, as explained in 9,000 carefully chosen words, and to design articles not only to support this rare person, but also to ignore and exclude the others? Perhaps we should spend more time thinking about our average reader, rather than our ideal one. This particular article gets about 400 views on an average day. Based upon research with mobile platform, many of those 400 readers never progress past the lead, and very few – maybe just one or two each day – read the whole thing. 2 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opabinia regalis, 3 October 2016: "Even if an infobox would help orient readers, the editorial improvements also obviously benefit them; it's a rare case where a mediocre article with an infobox is better than a well-developed article without one. On the other hand, it would really help if people who make "editorial choices" not to use infoboxes would do some more thinking about how they are going to serve their less prose-oriented readers - people who are just skimming, who aren't sure this article is the one they're looking for, who don't read English well, who are reading on their phones, who are trying to reuse our content, etc. While I don't mean anyone in this thread, I've noticed that a lot of the rhetoric around infoboxes carries the tone that these readers are not worth making an effort to reach, and that's not a sustainable approach." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017

edit
  • Voceditenore, 9 December 2017: "I personally use infobox opera on all the articles I write and expand (in conjunction with navigation footers), and consider it highly preferable to the old vertical navboxes. But that is neither here nor there. The world is not going to come to an end if some articles do not have them and vice versa." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jayron32, 12 December 2017: "The thing to keep in mind here is that regardless of whether or not the infobox belongs or not, once we've reached a decision to not include one in this article, it is not unexpected that there will be questions about that decision. Let's just concede that the the proper decision here is to exclude the infobox from the Cary Grant article. (I'm not saying it WAS the proper decision mind you, just that we'll treat it as a given for the sake of moving this discussion forward). Given that such a decision does not match reader expectations at Wikipedia, there are, every so often, going to be people who find the lack of an infobox surprising. Those people are also going to know NOTHING about the background of how the decision was arrived at. Here is my central point, so don't miss it (bold for emphasis): New, uninvolved readers and editors with no background in the prior discussions leading to the decision to exclude the infobox deserve to be treated with decency and respect and should be expected to receive a patient, clear, and proper response to explain the rationale for the decision. The people who wish to maintain the lack of an infobox can do so for all I care, but what should not happen is what I see on the talk page, which is those self-same people being curt, rude, and dismissive of people who want to understand why that is so. There are going to be people every few weeks who are going to raise the question. We cannot stop them from raising the question. While that doesn't mean we have to relitigate the issue every few weeks, it DOES mean that those people should be treated with decency and respect, and not dismissed rudely as though the decision which was reached should have been obvious to them." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2018

edit

2019

edit
  • JonRichfield, 26 March 2019: "Keep or improve the template or its form or content in context Having checked the "Templates for discussion" log, I consider the objections to templates and denial of their value to users to be mistaken, much like the wars against links and technical terms in article titles. It is quite possible to use them constructively, and as is true for any useful tool, to misapply them uselessly or harmfully or pointlessly. The fact that certain classes of user, typically professionals or others advanced in the field, might consider them as useless, redundant, misleading, or aesthetically displeasing, is beside the point. Those are not the only users. Many readers (most, I think) are either ill-equipped to go beyond factoids, or uninterested; even a professional might well look up a date or a name for constructive purposes. If anyone has objections, the appropriate course is to improve the template, not gratify a point of personal distaste. " --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020

edit
... A vote count shows an infobox has almost 2-1 support but closers are specifically warned not to simply count noses in that way. Looking at the strength of arguments shows that many fall into the category of "irrelevant arguments" those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. The majority of "oppose" arguments fall into simple WP:IDONTLIKEIT territory. E.g., the original author opposed infoboxes, that they are only good for certain types of articles, that they have no added value, that infobox discussions are unwelcome, etc. These are clearly expressions of "personal opinion only" and not especially helpful. There were other arguments that there is no precedent established by the presence of infoboxes on other biographical articles for famous authors. This is true but there was a clear expression for an infobox here so arguments against its inclusion on this article should be particular to this article and a lack of precedents is not a barrier to inclusion per the relevant Arbcom decision.
There were clear usability and policy-based arguments in favor of an infobox: that the requirements of the relevant template could be met, that access to information was enhanced, and that key biographical information was difficult to find quickly without one. These constitute grounds for improving the encyclopedia to serve readers, which is the first pillar and the basis of WP:IAR. As the number of users accessing this site via mobile devices has climbed, information accessibility arguments especially are ones that a closer should take seriously. There will inevitably be a backlash against this discussion but the clear consensus of this particular discussion for this particular article, by both numbers and strength of arguments is to endorse an infobox.

2021

edit
The article should include an infobox. The infobox should be well curated and only include details highly relevant to understanding the biography of the subject. What counts as "relevant" should be determined through regular editing.
Supporters had a numerical majority, and oppose arguments were generally weak. Some editors oppose an infobox on the grounds that it is redundant with the lead, and unlike prose it may present information without important context. Others point out that the redundancy is a good thing as our readership is not only people with time to read multiple paragraphs. Those editors argue that including the infobox provides data in a standardized and structured manner, and duplicating information in a different format (like the lead does for the article body) allows us to serve the needs of multiple kinds of readers and therefore more readers than prose alone; those seeking greater context have the option to read the lead, and if they still want more context they may read the full article.
Editors in opposition argue that the support rational---infoboxes are helpful to readers---is without evidence and should be discounted. Leaving aside the arguments from intuition used by those opposing, editors who commented late in the discussion point out that the sheer number of editors in this discussion saying that they are useful shows that skepticism about their usefulness is unfounded (editors are also readers, after all). some editors try to discount opinions in favor of inclusion by pointing out that arguments about infobox usefulness don't address usefulness in this article specifically. Leaving aside the arguments about the harms of infoboxes not specific to this discussion, and also leaving aside that most editors making this point are citing an essay about discussions at articles for deletion (which this isn't), any cooperative reader will recognize the implication that editors who comment here saying "infoboxes are generally useful" probably think that statement applies to this situation too. This is not to say that arguments for exclusion are without merit, rather, many rationales were procedural objections or double-edged.
A strong argument from those wanting to exclude an infobox points out that infoboxes, particularly of liberal artists like Fleming, collect a lot of useless information and attract vandalism. While vandalism or collecting "cruft" are legitimate concerns, supporters point out that these concerns are not unique to infoboxes, let alone the infobox on this article, and participants generally weighed the benefit to the reader more highly than the editorial work needed to curate the infobox. This concern still points out what considerations need to be taken into account when curating the content of an infobox: only include information that is well sourced, factually accurate, and which does not place undue prominence on minor aspects of the subject. As a few editors point out, this article passed FA while containing an infobox, so compliance with our manual of style and content policies is clearly possible. The specifics though are left to the regular editors of this page who know more than I do about what important stuff Fleming did.

2022

edit

hopefully nothing to report --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

while the year was calm for most of the time, infoboxes became subject of RfCs not only for Laurence Olivier (22 October 2022), but also some others that are still open. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also

edit

History

edit

The following brief memories are copied from User talk:Jmar67 on 19 December 2019:

Infoboxes

@Gerda Arendt: When you get a few minutes (?!), I would like a brief summary (here) of the infobox controversy you have been involved in. Thanks. Jmar67 (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just returned from the funeral (see my talk). My POV is on WP:QAI/Infobox. Perhaps start reading at the bottom, where admired people said good things. The last debate was on Pierre Boulez (in 2016, when he died, Archive 1). I didn't want any more of the kind. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, the last debate was Georg Katzer when he died. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: I noticed that and thought about you. Still don't understand the objection to infoboxes. I have seen them so often that an article without one looks incomplete. Jmar67 (talk) 04:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You could ask them that question, and perhaps get an answer. I asked, got no answer, but was told that I'm wrong. - I thought about bringing flowers iunstead of the question, but if the question is not understand, how will flowers be? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how about starting a little history of the infoboxs wars which began in 2005. As other religious wars, they are not so much about a faith (infobox yes or no) but about domain, power and alliances. The prime objection to an infobox seems to be that it dominates the upper right corner (for mobile the beginning of the article), and thus snares away the reader's attention from the "beautifully crafted" (not making that up, it's a 2013 quote) lead and article, and that reader may go away without ever looking at the beauty. Therefore opposers don't write infobox, but IB, meaning ídiotbox.

I can't tell you anything about 2005, because I joined in 2009. As you know already, if you followed my project link, my history with the infobox wars began in 2012.

2012

  • April 2012: Samuel Barber - Gerda Arendt meets the infobox wars. Infobox was added by Andy (Pigsonthewing), perhaps the most-hated player in the field, which she didn't know. It was reverted, he began a discussion. She opposed - and was converted in that discussion, by a beautiful line. The discussion is short, still on the talk, and was never resolved.

There are a few no-nos if you go to infobox discussions. Don't do it on the day an article is today's featured article (Jules Massenet today and three more days)! Don't ever mention the word ownership! Stay factual. Best advice: don't go at all ;) - Andy and I soon became friends. He (who once called an article without infobox "naked", - that was when he was forbidden by our highest court to add an infobox to an article he had created, but that's 2013 already) rarely touches an infobox discussion these days, nor do I. I just failed to look up who wrote the Katzer article, or would simply have left it as it was (so certainly no Main page appearance, with exactly one ref used inline twice). Sooo many other articles are missing. If you want to do something for the future, ask the question in the peer review of Orpheus in the Underworld. Better you than I ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2013

ARBINFOBOX

during

Cannot tell what he did. Jmar67 (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could follow his link, and look in the article history for "box" or the date, or here you go. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
His link is to the article. Still do not understand your point: that he added the infobox? Why would that please the critics? Jmar67 (talk) 07:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This was infobox opera added not by a despised member of QAI to an obsure short opera article, but one of the most respected FA writers adding it (on trial) to a featured article, - a first. Gerda Arendt thought the infobox wars were over ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jetzetle. :-) You meant "silence the critics", I guess. Jmar67 (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

after

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

In fond memory of Brian Boulton, who died on 9 December 2019 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In 2020, we could realise that we have more productive things to do than waste time in arguments about infobox yes or no. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In 2021, there were three RfCs: Cary Grant, Ian Fleming, Stanley Kubrick, and we discussed Jean Sibelius.

In 2022, we talk about Cosima Wagner. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC) ... and then had RfCs about Laurence Olivier, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, James Joyce and Claude Debussy.[reply]

In 2023 we had an RfC for Jenny Lind and talked about Robert le diable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Quality_Article_Improvement/Infobox&oldid=1167407153"