Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Revised proposal against hiding of infoboxes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wording similar to this should be added to to the Design and usage section of this article:

Infoboxes are not to be hidden or made collapsible on pages. Unlike navigation templates (navboxes), which are provided to simplify navigation to related subjects within the encyclopedia, infoboxes are considered to be an integral part of the body of an article, similar to images with captions or tabular data. Larger sections of parameters within an infobox may be collapsible, eg. in Toronto and Bertolt Brecht.

For comments in opposition to hiding infoboxes supporting this addition please see this archived Village Pump discussion. Sswonk (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm awaiting developer feedback on the printing issue - so premature - and disagree that 'infoboxes are an integral part of the body of an article - actually its quite disingenuous - they are typically integral to the summary of the article not to mention, misleading, inaccurate and facile, essentially failing to identify the most important facts of the article. If we want data attached to articles, there may be a better way. In the mean time the ability to hide such disinformation seems a reasonable proposition. --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually crafted the proposal with you in mind, as I thought you would see that a box could be vetoed on certain pages as a table or image might on aesthetic grounds you may then so eloquently state on a given talk page. As the proposal states, the hiding solution is a non-starter. On most pages with infoboxes, it includes an unambiguous, usually very high quality and beautiful, image and then the most fundamental statistics, which are of value to many readers. Often these statistics are not included within the article themselves because they can only be stated in long boring passages that don't go well with historical or informative exposition and discussion of the topic.

This discussion should focus on the hiding of infoboxes, not their merit or your opinion of their current usage by other editors within the encyclodia, which you unfortunately have attempted to make the focus here, yet again. Sswonk (talk) 01:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually swonk - in all fairness, I should have said 'in some articles'. There at those, which I readily concede, in which they are appropriate and not with the defects I listed - unfortunately I see no 'hard and fast rule' as to which these may be - context is key. --Joopercoopers (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Premature. As above, and this was archived for a reason. Give Joopers, and the developers, some time, eh? There is no way "the hiding solution is a non starter". Let's talk in a month or two, maybe. There is no deadline. ++Lar: t/c 01:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I don't foresee any technical solution to the essential and unreduceable problem, which that hiding infoboxes inherently entails concealing information that by consensus warrants inclusion in the article. Again, if an infobox is superfluous or overburdened with trivia, fix the infobox. Don't use software simply to create a rug under which to sweep them. JohnInDC (talk) 02:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • You not foreseeing a solution doesn't mean there might not be one. But a blanket prohibition on hiding is... blanket. And therefore wrong. Every rule has exceptions, except for the rule about every rule having exceptions. ++Lar: t/c 04:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
    • When the unforeseeable technical solution manifests itself, the rule can be amended. As for the argument that the proposal should not be adopted because "all rules have exceptions" - I assume that was tongue-in-cheek, inasmuch as the reasoning would forbid the adoption of any rule about anything at any time. JohnInDC (talk) 11:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I really wish I could Support this, but the comment about "blanket" rules bugs me and I can't just dismiss it. My position is that a bridge is helped by an infobox, either {{infobox bridge}} or {{Geobox|Bridge}} take your pick. In fact, I'd start using the Geobox if I could figure out how to use it. Anyway, I can't say this about all infoboxes, and in fact I learned of one infobox yesterday which I don't like, so I can't back the blanket statement. In fact, I'd rather like to edit the infobox bridge too, as some items in it seem, shall we say, non-core. I'm a bit hesitant to screw with the code, though. - Denimadept (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • In the archived discussion preceding this one, in his comment Lar (talk) writes "The MoS is a guide, not an iron straitjacket." Then here he cryptically states "But a blanket prohibition on hiding is... blanket. And therefore wrong. Every rule has exceptions, except for the rule about every rule having exceptions." Once a coder, always a coder? The proposed guideline could be changed in tone slightly to avoid having it called "blanket" but I suspect Lar is still going to hold firm; just my observations. Sswonk (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh, there's an exit condition from his statement. We need to find it. - Denimadept (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm confused - Sswonk are you suggesting you'd change the wording so it says hidden infoboxes might be allowed in some cases? Seems like a pointless proposal in that case?????? Blanket is blanket - which is it? Please elucidate. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
        • You're confused! Imaging my driving in rush hour traffic this morning when suddenly my head is filled with beautiful valid CSS that creates a striking little imageless file folder tab that is labeled "Vital statistics" and magically expands to contain any infobox, and seeing you and Wetman grinning broadly in approval. Luckily, I snapped out of it when oncoming traffic grabbed my attention. To apply some Lar style semantics, I meant what I wrote: "to avoid having it called blanket", not actually being blanket. Doesn't IAR have that covered anyway? It would be an all inclusive, "blanket" guideline until a beauty like I describe above that prints and is shown, not hidden, by default comes along. Nice. Sswonk (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
          • Sorry if I was too oracular. At this time I don't think the technical aspects of using show/hide are sorted, especially with regard to printing. (I don't agree with the usability arguments advanced). So I'd be opposed to a blanket requirement that all infoboxes get show/hide functionality at this time. It's premature. However, it's also premature to make a blanket prohibition. If you want a guideline that says "only use this in very limited circumstances, for now, pending resolution of issues, and with the understanding that it's experimental, for now, and in the end it might need changing back." I'd get behind that. But not a blanket prohibition. That stifles innovation, locks in less capable solutions too early and in general is a bad idea. As are all blanket prohibitions. (except the blanket prohibition on blanket prohibitions) ++Lar: t/c 15:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
            • I'm afraid I can't back the lack of blanket prohibitions on blanket prohibitions. There may be some which make sense! If someone decides to post articles in French on the English Wikipedia, that could be a problem. :-D - Denimadept (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
              • Oui, ce serait "mad"! Sswonk (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
              • I am forced to point to this xkcd Ya, I inserted a comment into a discussion that's already archived. There are probably blanket prohibitions against that, somewhere! ++Lar: t/c 19:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support, in agreement with Sswonk and JohnInDC throughout. I don't imagine the hiding-code would ever attain consensus for addition to Template:Infobox (especially with the default state as "hidden"), for all the reasons discussed over the last week, hence it shouldn't be used in an ugly div-hack within a single article either. However, I'd happily delegate all opinion to whatever the developers say about it; hopefully they can explain the problems better than I/we have been able to. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I am archiving this discussion pending the development of a viable solution. Development of an experimental infobox at Ponte Vecchio is an example of an attempt at innovation which may improve the project. Sswonk (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox citations

I have looked through what I was pretty certain were the relevant guideline pages, and have been unable to find an answer to my question. Are citations needed in an infobox? I ask specifically to the infobox in The Dishwasher: Dead Samurai, as I added the fact that there was Multiplayer in addition to the Singleplayer. It is stated in Silva's blog that the game has this, so I thought the information should be added, but didn't know if it needed to be cited or not.

I eventually decided to just rewrite and add the information to the article itself, source it there, and then it won't matter much, but I would still like to know for future reference if citations are needed for infoboxes if the information isn't specifically in the article. --Mike | Contrib 07:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

One man's opinion: undoubtedly yes, the infobox information should be cited when not cited within an article, and maybe even when it is cited within the article for ease of reference. Examples of citations: Google, Interstate 66, Logan Airport, Golden Gate Bridge and B-2 Spirit. Examples of ones that don't but should are Ohio State Buckeyes football (where's that information about the Penn State and Illinois rival status from?) and Super Mario Brothers (what is the source of those release dates?). I would treat citing the material within the box as seriously as with copy added to the body. Sswonk (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I decided to add the citation to the infobox, even though I did add the relevant information to the article. --Mike | Contrib 02:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Geographical infoboxes for deletion

I have nominated a considerable number of geographical infoboxes for deletion; please see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 28 and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 29. Thank you.Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

MOS for all sports infoboxes

Wondering if anyone knew if there was a general MOS for sportspersons infoboxes out there.Londo06 11:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Still having not found one, would anyone be adverse to me adding a few words.Londo06 15:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you set up a sub-page as a sandbox where a set of words can be agreed before being added to the main page; then invite the members of relevant projects to contribute. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. Will work something out, and then distribute it.Londo06 15:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Was just looking to add (somewhere), something like 'An infobox should include details on all aspects of a players sporting career.' Language obviously needs tweaking, but that would be the general theme of the addition.Londo06 17:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Added detail on. As stated before language and placement here obviously up for debate.Londo06 18:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I took this out. I think it might be worth drawing up a page for biography boxes, but the sentence you added was so vague as to be almost meaningless. Might as well say nothing. Flowerparty^☀ 01:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The vagueness is me being open. It does need to be said. The question is where and what is said. That was meant to be an opener.Londo06 01:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Captions

Any links on the differences between sporting infoboxes where captions on the infobox picture are discouraged and others such as film actors and music artists are not. Guess it is just the differences between infoboxes, aesthetics and all.Londo06 16:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I would argue in favour of captions for pictures in biography infoboxes such as in Brian Lara, Douglas Adams, Michael Jackson, Gahndi, James Hetfield, Serena Williams, Glynn Lunney, Clint Eastwood, Kate Bush, Brett Favre and Ed Gein. "(name) in (year)" or "(name) at/doing (place/thing) in (year)" seem to be pretty widely-accepted and used and I see no reason why not.--Jeff79 (talk) 02:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No Consensus for changes

There have been several edits to this policy page that had absolutly no discussion let alone consensus. Any change to policy must have consensus before being made. I am aware that there is an ongoing dispute on the Obama talk page based on this very subject. It seems that this page was changed to make a point on the Obama talk page. I was going to revert back to the old version, but that may fuel the embers even more, so I will leave it alone unless there is either consensus otehrwise, or enough time goes by and no one comments here at all.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Which edits are you referring to? Flowerparty^☀ 01:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

These edits here imparticular. [First] [Second] [Third] [Fourth]. These edits are a change in policy, without consensus or a discussion. What has happend is that the policy was changed to reflect the [template]. Is there a precident for that? Further more, the template was changed [here] over a year ago, by a user who had no consensus, no discussion, and no authority to to so. I may just be pulling at the bit here, but it all seems a bit strange how this has all happened.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I have, per a recent discussion on the incident board, reverted the change in official policy to the last usable version. It was suggested that I use WP:BRD to deal with this situation. I believe that there was no consensus for this change in policy and absent any consensus, the policy should remain the same.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

For once, I agree with you. There was no consensus to change the text from "item" to "subject". This expansive interpretation goes against the common name usage of almost all the biography templates. Take a look at the numerous template documentations that specify common name. But you announced on ANI to rewrite these so that all biographies adopt fullnames (just so Nixon's template uses his fullname?). This is unreal. Modocc (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

What has full name got to do with anything? You're calling people "items". That is at least confusing, and at worst, offensive. Is this infobox supposed to be used for people, or not? If so, then stop saying "items". And if not, explain which infobox is supposed to be used instead. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I am still trying not to, but that was the language as it was before, for the instruction only makes sense when referring to items. It also makes sense with subject too in the capacity of official offices. However, it does not make sense with biographies in general, as I keep pointing out. Why point to ANI? Last I looked, content disputes don't belong there and I will not be discussing it there unless forced to. BTW, I forgot to log in and edited with my IP (and discovered earlier this dynamic IP was changed to that of a horrible vandal). I would like to see my version restored that disambiguated people from items without putting them in the same pigeon-hole. Perhaps we can make it more robust thatn I had it. Instead of pointing to the person template, maybe add that ";for people, common name is optional." Modocc (talk) 03:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I tried to have a discussion here. Nobody cared. I tried to get feedback at ANI. Nobody cared. I reverted the edits. Now it seems someone cares. Regardless, I feel each page should have its own consensus, but the original wording of this policy was changed without even a discussion. By the way, not all templates about people say common name. The one on military figures says full name.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

From a designer's perspective, the compromise wording accommodates either usage. FWIW, I too was hoping for some constructive opinion from other editors. Modocc (talk) 04:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of {{infobox Mountain}} vs. {{Geobox/type/mountain}}

.. occurring at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains. You're welcome to join in the discussion. Thanks! hike395 (talk) 05:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Template naming conventions

I've suggested standardizing template naming, at Wikipedia talk:Template namespace#Template naming conventions. If you're frustrated with typing template names and constantly guessing at the right capitalization and spacing, please chime in. —Michael Z. 2009-01-10 17:46 z

A proposal to de-table Wikipedia infoboxes

Coders: Please see Håkon Wium Lie's latest post in the thread at WikiEN-l. This is looking potentially wonderful. (Cross-posted from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes. Suggest coordinating there) -- Quiddity (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

A change of recommended width

This change is quite dramatic [1]. Could someone/anyone please advise where the discussion took place that pre-empted it, or maybe explain why it was made, given that {{infobox}} (which this MOS suggests using as a base) uses 22em as the default width. Thanks. _wjemather^bigissue 22:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It's to comply with and standardise suggested widths. See MOS:IMAGES as an example. I understand that the standard size chosen of 180 pixels is to do with the range of browsers that users have, and that while it is acceptable to go larger in certain situations, if larger than 180 is the standard size then some users would have difficulty viewing pages, especially on some devices. I should imagine the {{infobox}} page needs updating. SilkTork *^YES! 07:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Setting the default infobox width to 180px means that any embedded images will actually be smaller than 180px, which is explicitly discouraged. I don't see that there was ever discussion about making 180px a default width for all floating elements, just image thumbnails; furthermore, recent discussion regarding thumbnails has generally involved motions to increase that default now that 800x600 isn't a statistically significant screen resolution. This should be reverted until it's actually discussed, rather than extrapolating from an entirely different part of the MoS. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Change now reverted. _wjemather^bigissue 13:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't infoboxes be classified as Wikipedia:Navigation templates?

Shouldn't infoboxes be categorized under Wikipedia:Navigation templates? Along with topicboxes, and navboxes? -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 00:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought so, at first sight. They are for information rather than navigation.--Kotniski (talk) 10:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

They're not about navigation but rather information on the current article so I'd say no. chandler ♠ 10:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. They serve quite different purposes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

My layman's explanation of the difference is that infoboxes are akin to "quick reference" cheatsheets that provide a basic summary of agreed upon factual and statistical data on a given subject while nav templates place the article within the scope of broader category of related articles, something like "this is basic data for this species of tree" vs. "here is where this tree lies within the forest of tree articles". So, no, they should not. Sswonk (talk) 11:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

MOS should make it clear that infoboxes are not always welcome in articles

Although this article is mostly about template-related issues with infoboxes, it does have a few details that are independent of implementation specifics. I'd like to suggest adding more of that.

I stumbled onto Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes, which also links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music#Biographical infoboxes and Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera#Infoboxes: all three wikiprojects declare infoboxes should not be used in biographies. This surprised me, as I had come to think of infoboxes, like categories and a few other conventions, as part of an overall look and feel of wikipedia articles. And there is {{infobox Person}}, which by its name implies its use is welcome in all biographies. But I guess I'm wrong about that: WP:Manual of Style (infoboxes) says nothing about the types of article for which creating an infobox would be a bad idea. I think that the manual of style ought to make this clear.

For example, I would add a new main section called something like "Use in specific types of articles" — and include a version of this paragraph from WP:WikiProject Biography/Infoboxes:

Certain biography articles have opposition camps on infoboxes. With the current work groups, it is generally safe, but, for instance, scientist articles can have some heated debates on these. So, if you are intending to apply one of the templates to an article about a scientist, academic, or classical composer, musician or singer, first ask on the Talk page. In addition, other infoboxes may be available that are not listed here but recommended by a particular work group (see People infobox templates).

Thanks. 72.244.201.66 (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

There was a long discussion about topics related to your proposal, see above "Infobox discussion at WP:EAR" and following archived threads. The original dispute was over the article Ponte Vecchio with sides being those who saw the bridge as a historic landmark with artistic merit and saw the infobox as cluttering out valuable text space versus others who wanted an infobox to appear as a quick reference as in *most* other bridge articles. The end result, a collapsible box, is now visible on that page. I find the above proposal interesting and agreeable. The assumption that infoboxes are welcome and needed everywhere is not a wise one, as shown by the heated comments made above. Sswonk (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, I believe it was also pointed out in the course of the various discussions here that WikiProjects don't actually own the articles under their purview, and that they should not in general be in the business of opting out of bits of the MoS and then enforcing that over random parts of the encyclopedia. Infobox templates may not be suitable in particular cases, but that's not simply because a given WikiProject doesn't want to use them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Removing/restricting infoboxes also hampers things like DBpedia, as well as our own readers. See Tim Berners-Lee's TED talk for more info on that. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Berners-Lee would never make a successful cult leader. I didn't see anything in the video to settle the thing, Quiddity, frankly I think you're just creaming off the authority of the inventor of the web to give clout to your own opinion. The trouble is that while DBpedia is a database, wikipedia isn't. Our articles are meant to be readable by humans, and your average human has no use for the exact geographic coordinates of a bridge, or for the top trumps bouquet of birth and death data that comes in the typical infobox. Just because a piece of data exists, there's no reason to believe our readers will want to see it. I've just discovered we have a complete list of Freddie Mercury's synthesisers, which would seem to be an excellent case in point (where did this information come from? I wouldn't trust it one bit.) Flowerparty^☀ 23:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

your average human has no use for the exact geographic coordinates of a bridge - Fascinating. Could you cite the research which discovered that, please? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I use that googlemaps-linking feature frequently, and almost always want to know at a glance what era the person I'm reading about was alive during (b&d dates). Never assume that the way you interact with the world is the only proper way to do so.

When looking for a bridge, I find the lat/long info invaluable. - Denimadept (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Geocoords aren't universally useful - in fact, they're actually relatively specialized data - but they are necessary for an encyclopedic treatment of physical locations and landmarks. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 09:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Freddie Mercury: 1) That has nothing to do with infoboxes or this thread. 2) {{Sofixit}}!

As for Berners-Lee, the video was about Linked Data, a sub-topic of the Semantic Web, which is what infoboxes and {{persondata}} and similar wikiprojects are aiming at and good for. Does that make the connection clearer?

(The hostility was unwarranted). -- Quiddity (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProjects don't actually own the articles under their purview, and that they should not in general be in the business of opting out of bits of the MoS - Amen. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

See also WP:CONEXCEPT: "Consensus decisions in specific cases do not automatically override consensus on a wider scale – for instance, a local debate on a WikiProject does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline. The WikiProject cannot decide that for the articles within its scope, some policy does not apply, unless they can convince the broader community that doing so is right.". But, brick walls tend to hurt ones forehead after a while... ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)