Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Flagicons in Infobox

Thought I read somewhere that we didn't use flagicons in an infobox, but can't find it on this page, am I correct in my assumption? Or do we not have a guideline on the use of flags in them thanks. Mo ainm~Talk 21:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

See WP:Manual of Style (icons)#Avoid flag icons in infoboxes. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I knew I saw it somewhere. Mo ainm~Talk 21:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing information in infoboxes

Hi. Like all of Wikipedia, I assume the assertions made in Infoboxes should be verifiable. I don't see anything in the Manual of Style (infoboxes) page mentioning this at all. Are there any general guidelines that have been developed on this?

For example, are infoboxes intended only to summarize what is explicated, and ostensibly cited with reliable sources, in the main body of the article? Or is it standard practice and okay for infoboxes to contain new claims supported nowhere else in the article? Obviously, infoboxes are used in both ways in extant articles today but I'm just asking if there is any sort of a styleguide or standard for how they ought to be used? And if it is not covered in the MOS (infoboxes) where might it be covered? What do other editors think? N2e (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I've wondered about this also. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

On the military history project I usually add specifications to the infobox with citations. Later I star graduating material to the article space. Marcus Qwertyus 21:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Common name

• "The top text line should be bold and contain either the full (official) name or common name of the article's subject. This does not need to match the article's Wikipedia title. It should not contain a link. Avoid {{PAGENAME}} as pages may be moved for disambiguation."

I've always preferred to use the common name. Let's just pick one for consistency. No reason it should be different from project to project. Marcus Qwertyus 11:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd stick with the current wording. So long as the name given makes sense and matches in with the lede. There will be cases when the "full name" is rather long for the infobox in which case a shortened form might be preferable. Eg "17 pounder, Self Propelled, Achilles" down to "17 pdr SP M10 Achilles". And there will be cases where a common name dominates. Not worth spending too much time on forcing a single policy on all the Projects. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes and otheruses navigation

What design should we generally prefer where an infobox coincides with {{otheruses}} navigation templates, including {{about}} and {{redirect}}?

Very top of the article This page is about some obscure thing, see this nice infobox. For other uses, see Manual of Style/Infoboxes/Archive 6 (disambiguation). Should an otheruses template be placed aside of infobox, like this?

This page is about an interesting thing. For dull things, see this, see that and there. Let us start… this article proper Or all the top space should be reserved for otheruses-style navigation?

I think that the design of otheruses templates above infobox (right) is more logically consistent, because otheruses navigation virtually is not comprised by an article. Otheruses are a link feature, not article's data. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The relevant guidelines can be found at WP:HNP and Wikipedia:Lead section#Elements of the lead. In my interpretation of the guideline, all hatnote templates should be placed before the infobox, because the hatnotes will show up on text-only browsers and screen readers first. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization?

Is there a consensus on whether or not the first word for each field is capitalized? And if so, would someone add this to the Project page? Thanks, Ocaasi (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Multiple Infoboxes

What are the guidelines for having multiple infoboxes in an article? I did not notice anywhere here that addresses. We have been having an issue lately with List of Characters articles including character infoboxes in every character section, even though the sections are not so large that they need an infobox. Is there a stance on this, and if there is and it's not on this page should it be?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Bignole is bringing this up because I keep running into it and asking him for clarification (which is probably driving him as nuts as it is me). I've been doing a lot of searching on this over the last half-hour or so (because two tv characters pages) and what I've found is that it seems like this has been left vague intentionally. I've found a few conversations where relevant projects or articles decided multiple infoboxes were appropriate and many more where they weren't (based on criteria of "does it improve the article"). From my searching, it seems like usually multiple infoboxes are not deemed helpful but that there have been some exceptions. Given that (and assuming I'm interpreting everything correctly), would it be acceptable for the TV and Film projects to have their own guidelines on the use of infoboxes for these types of articles? From my view, multiple infoboxes on "list of character" articles rarely add anything to the page other than clutter that is often very unwieldy, visually speaking. Millahnna (talk) 02:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, it depends. For instance, I've had a situation where I had three {{Infobox Bridge}}s on one page, now down to two. Some infoboxes, like {{Infobox NRHP}} are designed to be employed on their own or embedded in other infoboxes. I'd like there to be one answer, but I'm afraid such doesn't exist yet. I tried a year or so ago to come up with a modular infobox which could be chained together and kind-of glue multiple infoboxes to each other to make them appear more unified, but that didn't go anywhere. - Denimadept (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm gathering that the answer here varies. I guess what I'm looking for at this point is whether or not it would be appropriate for the film and tv projects to come up with their own brief guideline. This could, of course, be flexible to express the fact that there are exceptions (much like our plot summary guidelines allow for length exceptions). But I frequently meet with resistance when I remove multiple infoboxes from list of ____ characters articles. And it often seems to me that these objections are not founded in making the encyclopedia better so much as an idea of making editing easier (and sometimes these goals are exact opposites from each other). For instance, even when multiple infoboxes ARE kept on an article, they still should not include information that isn't in the prose itself, correct? Yet I'm currently debating the idea of keeping infoboxes to avoid "unnecessary prose". Millahnna (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

From previous "discussions", tabular information is best kept in an infobox. For bridges, this includes measurements and weight, but even those don't have complete agreement. The issue is that it really depends on the topic. Some people just don't like infoboxes at all and will do anything they can to remove them, regardless of sense. Others want to stick every possible option in an infobox, which is probably not right either. I'd say it's best for the people in your projects to come to a consensus as to how they want to use the things. I don't include infoboxes in List of crossings of the X river, as such are included in the individual crossings' articles, if any. But I don't know your situation so I can't say what's appropriate. - Denimadept (talk) 05:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for all the replies; your summation of previous discussion helps clarify the pros and cons a bit. It looks like on one of the articles in question it's actually going to be better to keep them (though now the debate is what info should be "duplicated in prose"). The other, well I'm still not convinced it adds to the article. But, to be fair, both articles are plagued with an in-universe problem that's worse than the box issue. Millahnna (talk) 06:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You should read "discussions" as "heated arguments", note. There are a number of <bleep>-for-brains out there who don't agree with me on these issues. That's just wrong, but what can I do?  :-> - Denimadept (talk) 07:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

"when multiple infoboxes ARE kept on an article, they still should not include information that isn't in the prose itself, correct?" If you mean this is self-evident, it isn't. And it seems that you're trying to set this as policy, when it clearly hasn't been considered much by anyone as an issue. I see no need to insist that all information in the the infobox be in the prose as well. That seems to be derived from the idea that an infobox is a summary, and cannot contain anything that is not a summary. However, usage evolves and a construct designed for one context can be used in a different way elsewhere without obligation to follow the originator's intent. An infobox as I see it is simply a table of data. And tables of data are generally much better left as that and not expressed at greater length and less clarity in prose. Barsoomian (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I think our issue is people using a character infobox for every single character in a "List of characters" page, when most character sections don't have enough information to even warrant an infobox.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I know. But I don't see why that is a problem in itself. Why not? It reminds the editors what information is required and missing for one thing and makes it easy to see relationships between characters (by which I don't just mean "romantic"). Sorry if that's not why it was devised. I see it as primarily a way to organise and present data, not simply and only to summarise. It's a "box of information". Saying all infoboxes MUST be summaries seems a non sequitur to me. Surely you can require that of specific infoboxes, by consensus. But not demand it for every use of a derived template. Barsoomian (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Now I see what you're talking about. I mentioned that in when I talked about "List of crossings of X river". If the character isn't worth an article, it's not worth an infobox. My opinion. - Denimadept (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

And my opinion is that there is no significance or status implied or required by the use of an infobox in this way. It's just a table with some convenient presets. Barsoomian (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

See List of crossings of the Connecticut River. Are you saying that you'd put an infobox for each entry in that article? Please show me an example of what you've got. - Denimadept (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

No. The overall table is fine. Though you actually DO have an infobox for each entry, as each entry links to a separate article, each with an infobox. And show you an example of what? Barsoomian (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so you're not talking about putting all the infoboxes (infoboxen?) into the list article itself. I wanted to see an example of what you were arguing about. - Denimadept (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

That's conceivable, but even though each crossing article is quite short, stuffing them all together would be unwieldy. Actually, the use in the Primeval articles probably is due to many of the creatures and characters originally having their own articles, later merged, including their infoboxes. It works there because it's just a list, unlike your crossings article, a table. A table of infoboxes would be pretty silly.Barsoomian (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Episode lists in infoboxes

Some infoboxes for TV programmes (example: Bart the Genius) have episode and season lists within them. I contend that this is unhelpful, and that the episode lists belong in navboxes, after (unlike infoboxes, which come before) the content of the article, which is where comparable information is found for almost every other type of article.

Recent TfD discussion was inconclusive, so I'm raising the matter here for a wider consideration. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Alternative script names

Should alternative script names be used in infoboxes? There doesn't seem to be any specific guideline about it. If alternative script names can and should be used in infoboxes, under what criteria and circumstance? Bejinhan talks 02:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

This issue stems from an earlier discussion here. It was clear that names in non-official languages should not be allowed in the infoboxes. The main questions is: What is Wikipedia's guideline on the inclusion of names in official languages in infoboxes for articles of geographic locations? From these array of articles: South Africa, European Union, Kaliningrad Oblast, Bavaria, Jalisco, Quebec, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, it seems the inclusion of all official languages is allowed. But are there any firm guidelines on this matter? - Yk (talk | contrib) 03:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Usage

Should there be suggestions on how to use, not just how to make, infoboxes as suggested in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Photography#Redundancy_in_camera_articles? Jim.henderson (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean a section like ==Putting an infobox in an article==, that contains really basic information on what tot type and what to include? I think that might be appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It might be good to say that while it appears as the first thing in the article, certain templates go before it. - Denimadept (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's the section. Why and how to use them well. How many infoboxes should an article have, what degree of redundancy and balance between box info and prose info can be good, how to avoid intefering with layout of pictures and tables; various suggestions like that. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Official languages in infoboxes

Should official languages be included in the infoboxes of articles? Articles like European Union and South Africa have their names in their official languages listed. There are currently no guidelines regarding this matter. Bejinhan talks 12:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd think this would be highly specific to an infobox. A structure has no official language. Neither does a biography or any number of other kinds of infobox. - Denimadept (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC: restructuring of the Manual of Style

Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation:

Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?

It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved. Noetica^Tea? 00:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Units in templates for objects in areas with different standard units

I ran into a problem when editing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_Rossa

The infobox template "roller coaster" uses customary units, but sources and location both use metric units. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Which_units_to_use , the page should therefore use metric first.

Is there any policy about units for templates that are applied to areas with different measurement units? Makrom (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

From what I learned, the roller coaster template optionally provides entries for metric values, so this issue should be solved. However, is there a general guideline for other templates for that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makrom (talk • contribs) 13:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Should we add a spouse field to Infobox musical artist?

There is currently an RfC underway to discuss whether a "spouse" field should be added to Template:Infobox musical artist. Interested editors are invited to voice their opinions at Template talk:Infobox musical artist#Should Template:Infobox musical artist include a "spouse" field?. --JN466 17:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Coordinates vs Lat Long in infoboxes

At various infobox templates I see parameters for both Coordinates and Lat/Long. The Coord line basically asks for lat/long, and will produce lat/long info on the article page. So do we actually need both sets of parameters? There are perhaps 200+ such templates. I am raising this question on various discussion pages seeking to find an answer and/or prompt a change. Please help. (Accordingly, I'll watch this page and followup on the other pages if I receive a workable answer.) --S. Rich (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Underscores in parameter names

According to this part of the MoS, "Multi-word parameter names should be separated with spaces, thus: |first second=", yet many infoboxes use parameter names with underscores, for example, |birth_date=. Is the MoS out of step? should we change it? The matter is being discussed at Template talk:Infobox person#Parameter naming standards. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Consistency between infoboxes

The section named "Consistency between info boxes" is meant to promote consistency but is unclear on one large and obvious point:

“ It should contain either the full (official) name or common name of the article's subject ”

To ensure consistency I recommend that we state which one is best practice. I say that the name at the top of the Infobox should match the common name and article title. The legal name (birth name, aliases, etc.) would be reserved for the lead paragraph. Eg:

• John Edwards
• Hulk Hogan

In favour or against? --Hutcher (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It should match the article title; whether or not this is the same as "the common name", is frequently a matter of debate. Uniplex (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

External links in infobox

Does anyone have any guidance regarding the inclusion of external links in infoboxes, for example those found at the bottom of Template:Infobox NFL player? Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The question flows from a friendly discussion over JWeiss's decision yesterday to disable several established fields in the football coaching infobox here. Several others (including me) like having those fields active, but JW believes it is inappropriate for an infobox to ever link to a site off Wikipedia. I see no prohibition on such links. The NFL infobox is another example where we include links to a limited number of authoritative off-line resources such as nfl.com for the player's career stats or the Pro Football Hall of Fame for the person's HOF biography. Another example that I've used and found to be helpful is the field in many infoboxes that links to google maps for a geolocation -- that one is included in multiple infoboxes, e.g., Watts Tower. Many infoboxes also include a field for an external link to a person, government agency or company web site, e.g., Arianna Huffington, Detroit and Apple Inc.. Book infoboxes are another example where we routinely include limited, authoritative external links to WorldCat, e.g., Gone with the Wind. I don't see the need for a ban on having limited and helpful links to important external content in infoboxes. Cbl62 (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

There is limited information at WP:External links, which permits them (WP:ELPOINTS #2) and suggests that WP:ELOFFICIAL links are typical but not the only possible use.

Not properly documented is this: ELs in infoboxes normally point to websites that are so comprehensive and obviously appropriate that if the link wasn't in the infobox, you'd be manually adding it to practically every single relevant article in the usual ==External links== section, even if you applied the strictest possible scrutiny to the links.

So, for example, {{Infobox disease}} includes a link to OMIM, because the OMIM database is such a useful, unique, encyclopedic, and obviously appropriate link that if it wasn't in the infobox, we'd be typing the OMIM link into the EL section of practically every single article about genetic disease.

It doesn't, however, provide a link to any of the many medicine-related websites, like WebMD or Merck, because those links are only sometimes appropriate: perhaps their article is less detailed than ours (in which case, including either is an WP:ELNO#EL1 violation), or you want only one of them (a string of ELs with the same content is inappropriate), or some less-famous website has a more suitable page (so you add the best page, not the big-name page), or other reasons like that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe that external links should be permitted in two cases: official websites; and links to structured database sites, such as OMIM (above) and IMDb. that way, the links are more easily scraped or parsed by third parties; and are available to DBpedia, adding to the richness of metadata we emit and to the web of linked data. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's where I think the line should be drawn with external links in an infobox. If the textual value of a link field provides notable content specifically about the subject, then it's okay for an infobox. If not, it's not. Things like links to OMIM, OCLC, ISBN, ICD-9, and ICD-10 codes, and geographical coordinates all pass this test. But stuff like links to the IMDb or Baseball-Reference.com do not. We don't deems a subject's unique identifier on those latter sites to be notable enough to display textually. It's nothing more than a URL fragment. However, links to the IMDb and Baseball-Reference are indeed appropriate for an external links section as they are structured, definitive, and reliable databases. Templates exists to standardize syntax for these sorts of eternal links. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain how your proposed method achieves the linked data benefits of mine? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know a whole lot about the data mining you're talking about, but couldn't you just as easily scrape an external link template in an external links section as you could a field in an infobox? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

No, for two reasons: firstly, DBpedia doesn't scrape articles, it parses (chiefly) infoboxes. Secondly, an external links section might contain, say, an IMDb link for the subject's partner or a relative. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

DBpedia has to go out to the articles to get to the infoboxes, right? Doesn't it just search the namespace for certain templates and then certain fields within those templates? No article should contain an IMDb link to anything other than the subject of the article. If you find an article with IMDb links to a subject's partner or relative, they should be deleted. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

More consistency between infoboxes

Suggest to add this at the end of the lead: “The meaning given to each infobox field should be the same across all instances of that type of infobox. For example, for a particular infobox type, if one of its fields is called "weight", it would be inappropriate to sometimes use this field to denote "weight at birth" and other times "weight at maturity". Each infobox type should have documentation giving instruction on how each part/field may be used.” Uniplex (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Done this, though in a dedicated Usage section, collating other usage info. Uniplex (talk) 11:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I dunno if this is such a good idea. Using your example, what do you do with "weight" in {{infobox diamond}}? {{infobox artifact}}? {{infobox tractor}}? {{infobox turf race}}? {{infobox ipod}}? None of these are "born" or "matured", and the weight of diamonds changes (uncut vs cut weight). At minimum, this is a poor example. I suspect that what you mean is that the meaning ought to be tolerably obvious to the reader, in the context (so birth weights of professional boxers aren't included), and that for any given subject (not any given parameter name), it ought to be reasonably consistent (so that if you're reading about famously premature babies, you don't get weight at birth in one article and weight at death in another). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

References in infoboxes?

Whether references should be in infoboxes is not mentioned in the guide, although, arguably, is covered by the statement that info boxes should "exclude any unnecessary content". While references, in general, are very necessary, the material in an infobox, by design, is redundant, so the material, and any necessary references should already be in the article. Adding the references again to the infobox is clearly "unnecessary content". In the case where a reference is needed, and it isn't the article, the solution is to cite the material in the article, rather than add a reference to the infobox.)

This question was posed here, but received no comments.

Does anyone disagree with the apparently obvious conclusion that duplicating a reference in an infobox qualifies as "unnecessary content"?

I have seen some examples and plan to remove them, but I'd like to make sure I'm on solid ground before doing so.--SPhilbrickT 16:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Generally , references should not be in infoboxes; they corrupt the emitted metadata and are certainly not needed if given elsewhere in the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above: they are not needed if the information is repeated (and cited) elsewhere. If they are actually necessary, however, and the material isn't repeated elsewhere (and therefore can't be cited elsewhere), then they should be included.

It's worth remembering that while most infoboxes are mere repetitive summaries of article content, a few are not. See the infobox at the top of Mercury (element) for an example of a widely used infobox that does not merely repeat article content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with WhatAmIDoing. The general rule is that all facts in the InfoBox should be repeated in the article body, and the reference/cite should appear at that body location, not in the InfoBox. In the rare situation where a fact only appears in the InfoBox (and it is "likely to be challenged" per WP:V) then a citation should be in the InfoBox. For example, Albert Einstein has two footnotes in the infoBox. But, in most well-written articles, all facts in the InfoBox will be elaborated upon in the body. --Noleander (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The section where the infobox "influences" entries would be detailed in Paul Krugman has been tagged as requiring expansion for a while. Unfortunately for this particular article, those who want to improve that section are often left exhausted by battling editors who feel driven to make politically tendentious edits in other parts of the article. As if these chronic struggles weren't enervating and demoralizing enough, SPhilbrick would prefer to leave the infobox "influences" section inaccurate and misleading (violating of WP:PRESERVE policy in the process [1]) rather than violate what he claims is a "policy" laid down by this infobox MOS guideline. I'm sorry that the corresponding section of Paul Krugman is poorly written; I'm even sorrier that it's likely to remain so for quite some time, under such politically polarized circumstances. But I don't see how that section's inadequacies justify deleting useful information in its infobox (whether footnoted or not): the numerous well-known, uncontroversial influences on this important economist's thinking. Since when does a guideline (and SPhilbrick's non-commonsense interpretation of it) override a policy? And if footnoting infobox items "screws up the metadata", well, to me (a former software engineer) that sounds like a software bug, not a bug in the article per se. Can anyone here rigorously quantify how readers are somehow better served by avoiding "screwing up the metadata" in this case than by providing them with reliable sources to back useful information, albeit in a sketchy form such as an infobox? Yakushima (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that GA Albert Einstein has references in the infobox. I wanted to check to see if the FA or GA discussions had any comment on this issue, but neither reference existed, AFAICT, at the time of any of the nominations. One footnote has already been removed, and if I find time, I'll address the other one.--SPhilbrickT 19:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Deleting carefully referenced infobox information - when is it OK?

See here: [2]

Briefly: SPhilbrick thinks that Infobox MOS, a guideline, trumps WP:PRESERVE, an element of policy, because (in his mind), infobox data qualifying as "may be deleted" means "must be deleted," even after the material in the infobox has been carefully footnoted.

In this case, the article section in which the infobox-summarized material would be expanded upon has been tagged for needing expansion for quite a while. And I think there's no argument that it should be expanded. The problem (we seem to agree) is very much that the subject of this biography is controversial for political (not so much economic) reasons, which diverts editors' attention from expanding on his relations to other (technically) important and personally formative figures in the field in which he attained notability.

For the time being, I see no harm (and considerable good) done by simply adding to the list of influences on this economist, while adding citations to items on the list. My effort on this task is now confounded by SPhilbrick's this edit (and rationale) [3]. That edit not only removed almost all of the references I dug up to support the infobox statements implied by listing other economists as influences (an egregious WP:PRESERVE violation), [He did actually document almost all of what he deleted, just in a new Talk thread I missed at first] but also leaves the impression that this esteemed economist, who has been pretty careful to credit his numerous contemporary influences, has only been influenced by two long-dead economists whom he never even met. Such an impression could form the basis for an attack on the subject, tantamount to a violation of WP:BLP: that this economist's thinking is only "old hat," e.g., "Paul Krugman's work is only based on the dated work of a mere two economists, whose work has long since been improved upon." There are in fact economists who fit that description. (Your average Austrian School economist, perhaps.) But unless those economists qualified under the General Notability Guideline for other reasons, it's pretty unlikely they could have achieved enough notability to qualify for a Wikipedia bio.

I have repeated my arguments to this effect, but apparently to no avail when it comes to the thinking of SPhilbrick. I've even pointed out that, if he applied his own thinking consistently, he'd probably have to delete the fact that a baseball player bats left, if that fact is only mentioned in the player's stub-bio infobox. No response to that one. Perhaps someone else can bring SPhilbrick to reason. Does anybody here have experience with "common sense exceptions to guidelines" (in particular the Infobox MOS guideline)? How about experience with those cases (undoubtedly rare, if they exist at all) where administrators' collective judgement has somehow favored the guideline, even where favoring it went against longstanding policy? That one, in particular, I find mind-boggling. SPhilbrick's disparagement of WP:PRESERVE seems to go no further than that he "feels" that that policy should "evolve". He never gets more specific than that. He's an admin. It seems to me he should know better. A lot better. Am I missing something here? Yakushima (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

1. User:Yakushima is requested to avoid explaining to others what is in my mind, partly because it is irrelevant, and partly because User:Yakushima has not demonstrated an ability to do it accurately. If anyone wants to know why I made a particular edit, I'm happy to explain. I have posted extensively on the article talk page, on my own talk page, and here, in the section above, on these matters. If I've failed to adequately explain any action, please ask me, rather than accept the incorrect characterizations of others.
2. I have not elevated the infobox guideline above PRESERVE. I do strongly feel that some editors think bad edits impose an obligation on other editors to fix them, and I reject that notion, but that's a side discussion. As I have responded to User:Yakushima already, the policy states: If you think a page needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do it, but preserve any content you think might have some value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change. I've done that.
3. I welcome discussion on whether footnotes belong in infoboxes. I think not. There were two exceptions in Albert Einstein, one has already been improved, and I am in the middle of discussions with others about the remaining one.
4. The observation about baseball players is interesting, but it isn't an area I've worked in, so I need to do some research before responding.--SPhilbrickT 15:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"preserve any content you think might have some value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change." SPhilbrick, you aren't in compliance with that part of the policy, unless you actually think all of the sources I cited to support my listing of all of the economists I added as "influences" have no value as sources for the article (whether for this "influences" purpose or any other.) After that edit, you supplied NO COMMENT WHATSOEVER on the talk page about why you thought those sources were worthless. WP:PRESERVE seems to require -- by your own report above -- that you do so. [Missed that he had (for reasons that elude me) started a whole new section to document is WP:PRESERVE compliance.] (By the way, merely claiming that you're not elevating Infobox MOS over WP:PRESERVE doesn't make that claim true: you need to explain why the edit you insist upon involves no such elevation.)

If you could see that there was some value in the sources I cited, but deleted them anyway, that's a violation of WP:PRESERVE. [He did in fact leave the references on the talk page, although he lost the ref=name tagging in the process, useful stuff I'd like to have back, please]] If you didn't see some value in them, then it's nearly a foregone conclusion that you don't actually know much about the subject you're trying to make edits on, and (far worse) that you don't particularly care to inform yourself either. As I've pointed out repeatedly: leaving Paul Krugman's influences documented only as "Keynes" and "Hicks" is misleading, inaccurate, and could leave some quick readers (for whom infoboxes perform a valuable service) under the impression that Krugman has never bothered much with any work done since those economists made their major contributions, long ago. That's ludicrously far from the truth. And yet you seem to have no problem with leaving that impression.

If deleted with intent to leave some such impression, it's a WP:BLP violation (in spirit if not in the letter). If the impression was left unintentionally, it's only out of sheer ignorance of the subject. You can no longer credibly claim the latter, however, after I've provided so many sources showing that these economists actually are significant influences. The most charitable conclusion I can come to, then, is that I'm dealing with the proverbial "foolish consistency" of "small minds", manifesting (in this case) as Infobox MOS uber alles.

If you're gong to hold Infobox MOS in such high esteem, maybe you'd better look before you leap. The sentence you're clearly relying on here doesn't even make logical sense. It says "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts about the article in which it appears." Well, that's ridiculous wording! If anything, the purpose of an infobox would be to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. Taken literally, as it stands, infoboxes would only report facts like article creation dates, the timestamp of the last change, what redirects to the article, and other metadata utterly unrelated to the article's content. How can you (or anyone) credibly claim this statement has the strength of some well-thought-out policy, forged in the minds of many seasoned admins and editors working together on it, when nobody caught this error introduced on Sep 24, 2010 [4], well over a year ago? Yakushima (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your suggested edit to the guideline. I think it would improve the guideline, but I don't think it would change the way editors view it. Empirical evidence indicates that editors act as if the key facts were "in the article" not "about the article", so the edit would be cosmetic, but I'm in favor of improving wording, so I support the change.

However, your assumption that I think "those sources were worthless" is false. I copied them to the Talk page precisely because I think they could be valuable to any editor willing to take on the task of writing a section about those who have influenced Krugman. Perhaps you need to reread PRESERVE; I believe I've followed it, but if I haven't please explain what you think I missed. My guess is that you could write a section about influences in less time that you've taken to argue extensively, vociferously, and incorrectly that such a section isn't needed, but that's your call, not mine.--SPhilbrickT 17:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

My apologies: I hadn't noticed that you'd copied the sources to an entirely new section of the Talk page for Paul Krugman. I was expecting some continuity in the existing discussion(s). Because ... well, I guess because I keep hoping for common sense from you, clearly a triumph of hope against experience.

I have never argued that "such a section isn't needed". In fact, in this discussion, I have pointed out repeatedly that the influences should eventually be detailed in a section that's been tagged as needing expansion for a long time. In times past, I've personally done some of that expansion while others argued in circles on the talk page. Why don't you just get the fuck out of my way so that I can take it up again?

I want to do some actual work on the article, resulting in actual improvements. It so happens, I want to use what Marek said is a pretty badly designed infobox as a kind of memo pad, AT THE SAME TIME THAT INFOBOX SECTION SERVES UP SOME USEFUL, WELL-CITED INFORMATION TO READERS IN A WAY THAT ACTUALLY CONTRAVENES NO POLICY WHATSOEVER. This makes your deletions of that useful information simply disruptive: THEY CONTRAVENE CLEARLY STATED, LONGSTANDING POLICY WHILE ALSO IMPLYING INACCURATE AND UNFAIR CRITICISM OF THE SUBJECT OF A BLP.

When are you going to get it? Whatever your initial motives, YOU ARE NOW DISRUPTING WIKIPEDIA TO MAKE SOME POINTS, viz. that "Removing uncited material is an improvement" -- quite moot in the case your second deletion of my work since I cited everything then -- and that "rules" and "policies" that are not "explicitly stated" but somehow "well understood" apply here with the force of policy. Very badly argued points at that. You couldn't even get WP:PRESERVE right on the first try -- I had to point out that you were violating it. So you're clearly no font of wisdom on that particular subject. Yakushima (talk)

Given the intensity of this dispute, let me say this: If it's difficult to briefly and accurately/fairly/without bias/non-misleadingly summarize (for example) the influences on an economist (say, because there are lots of influences), then you are supposed to omit that item from the infobox entirely and leave the complexities to the full article text.

Help me out there: where in policy does it say that? If it's only in a guideline somewhere, why is this not a commonsense exception?

Yakushima, I hope that you will develop what someone called a sense of "extreme pragmatism" the other day. Think about how many paragraphs you've written already in arguing over this. Think how many fewer paragraphs it would take to write and source a whole section on ==Influences==. This dispute could be resolved already if you recognized that the most reliable path to "winning" disputes over the contents of an infobox is to have the full, properly sourced information written into the article. (That's also the most effective method of getting the information to the readers, which appears to be your main goal.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I try to avoid extreme anything, WAID, so there's no way I'm going to develop a sense of "extreme pragmatism." And especially not when a bigger issue suddenly looms out of what should be a minor dispute, one that should be easily settled on commonsense grounds. Review the history of this dispute, bearing in mind that SPhilbrick is an administrator.

• SPhilbrick deleted almost all of the influences on Krugman from his bio's infoxbox. This deletion left a poorly-developed aspect of the article not just more impoverished -- no, the article was left reflecting both inaccurately and negatively on the subject of a BLP! Tell me why that's not a WP:BLP violation!
• In some (pro forma) conformance with WP:PRESERVE SPhilbrick noted on the Talk page the names of influences he'd deleted, leaving no evidence whatsoever that he was even aware of the impact of these economists' thinking on the subject of the BLP, and saying he just didn't have the time to bring the contributions into conformance with what he inaccurately characterized as policy.
• I restored the influence list, added one or two other names, added extensive citations. Then SPhilbrick deletes all of my work, in egregious violation of WP:PRESERVE - he doesn't reproduce any of the sources I cited on the Talk page, as WP:PRESERVE policy requires. He could only claim he was still in compliance with WP:PRESERVE if he though that all of the sources I cited had no value for any part of the article. I invite you to take a look at them. [Didn't see until now that he'd started an entirely new section for the purpose of WP:PRESERVE compliance for that edit. But ... WHY?]
• In the edit summary for that deletion, SPhilbrick continued to characterize a poorly-worded part of this guideline as policy. Earlier, he had argued that WP:PRESERVE doesn't necessarily apply because he "feels" that it should "evolve". He maintained that he's actually improved the article.

Let's step back and take a look at all this behavior: this is an admin not only going fuzzy-minded on some pretty important policy, he's (implicitly at least) leaving a BLP unfairly critical of its subject as a result.

Would I rather be writing and sourcing a whole section on influences? Hell, yes. I've contributed a lot of substance to this BLP in the past. When I write that "others" might come along later and using the Infobox influences list as a basis for expansion, I don't mean "editors other than me", I mean "editors other than WP:IDONTWANNADOTHEWORK SPhilbrick." Yes, I'd like to do that work.

Instead this article's progress is now being impeded by not only ideological ankle-biters, but by wikilawyering admins. That's going to be a much bigger issue for all of Wikipedia, if the latter tendency becomes ever more represented within administrator ranks. Better to nip this one in the bud. Extremism in the pursuit of liberty can, in fact, be a vice, but so can extremism in the pursuit of pragmatism. I don't want to be dodging and weaving around this guy in trying to produce what I also feel are substandard improvements to the article (but improvements nevertheless) when the article is already hard enough to improve simply because there so many Paul Krugman opponents editing on an ideological basis. SPhilbrick is not only selectively interpreting guidelines as policy, and inconsistently applying WP:PRESERVE, he seems to be on some crusade to declare improvements that aren't quite to his taste or up to his standard as actual damage to an article, while declaring that his deletions of such work are "improvements" when they are manifestly damage. That doesn't scare you? That's not a whole lot bigger than this particular Infobox MOS issue? Yakushima (talk) 04:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the suggestion (I think made by Sphilbrick) that InfoBoxes should never contain footnotes. I wrote an article once, where the subject had two spouses, and the InfoBox contained the dates of the marriages. There was a peculiar fact about one of the marriage dates (there was the appearance that the marriages overlapped, I think) that deserved to be noted, yet was not important enough to be in the body of the article. Thus, the InfoBox contains a footnote attached to the marriage dates. Deleting the footnote is unacceptable, and yet adding detailed information about the marriages into the article is also not a great path. Clearly, this is a rare example, but the point is that there are exceptions to the rule that "InfoBoxes should not contain footnotes". --Noleander (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The word "never" is always a red flag for me, so I'd be hesitant to say that there are no exceptions. Maybe there's even a class of exceptions, but I think it is a good general rule to avoid them, unless there is consensus and a strong rationale that it is the best way to portray the information. Your example sounds like it may qualify.--SPhilbrickT 01:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I concur with what you say. --Noleander (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You know what? I also think it's good general rule to avoid them. But I'm not going to try to drum up consensus where individual initiative and common sense can move Wikipedia forward faster. Please remember that we're under no requirement to make every improvement to an article perfect. I've found uncited information in infoboxes that really seemed to require RS support. dredged up the needed sources, added them to the infobox, and been displeased with the result. And then moved on, secure in the knowledge that at least I'd improved the article. But that's not all of what's going on in this case. Here, we have Paul Krugman, chronically an ideological battleground. Here we have a case of removing influences from his infobox, leaving only two long-dead economists whose work has long since been improved upon (by, among others, several economists in the list of Krugman influences SPhilbrick wants to delete until he finds treatment of them personally satisfying). This leaves the infobox saying "Krugman has only been significantly influenced by two economists who, if those were the only ones to influence him significantly, wouldn't get Krugman a job at a rural community college, much less MIT, Berkeley and Princeton." SPhilbrick's thinking on this issue could really use some adjustment, and on several levels: policy vs. guidelines; what's common sense vs. what's mere literalism (literalism in badly-worded guidelines at that); and for that matter, the subject of this contentious BLP himself and his career in economics. Rudi Dornbusch, a great economist, was Krugman's thesis advisor (and the subject of an affectionate obituary by Krugman). But mention of Dornbusch gets deleted from the article even when it has multiple supporting citations because it's mentioned in a way that's not to SPhilbrick's personal taste and personal editing priorities, when you get right down to what his real issues are (after dispensing with his fallacious argument of operating under the color of "policy".) Something's very wrong here. This guy's an admin. More junior editors, reading his words, will give them serious weight. So those words had better be right. Yakushima (talk) 05:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

SPhilbrick's position on infobox data is that, as a general rule, anything in the infobox should be repeated in context in the article. So I looked at the first article he lists among his own creations:

• Kerry Bascom. Jersey number and height not mentioned in the article text. Good point, fixed
• I looked onward, and in his #4, mention is made of light and dark uniforms in the infobox, but nowhere in the article text itself.Good point, removed
• In his #5, Big East Conference Women's Basketball Player of the Year, the United States is given under infobox entry "country", but isn't in the main text of the article.Good point, fixed
• In #6, Shea Ralph, Jersey number and height in infobox, missing from main text of article.No, her height is in the main text

Wow, only up to #6 in SPhilbrick's own articles, and we're already up to four instances of apparent violation. That would be a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, I know, except that it's not OTHERSTUFF. It's HISSTUFF.

OK, I admit I haven't yet looked at the guidelines (not policies) for the relevant infoboxes, but am I to believe that they all explicitly exempt these particular items from what SPhilbrick claims is otherwise a requirement?

Oh, hell, lemme look at just one: Infobox NCAA Athlete [5].

Nope, nothing there about any such exemption for player heights and jersey numbers. Now, I distinctly remember ... oh, yes, here he is saying it:

"Not explicitly stated here, but well understood in practice is the notion that material in an infobox is deliberately redundant; any item in an infobox should be found, almost always with supporting references, in the main text of the article."[6]

And he says this, too:

"There are some rare exceptions, such as highly technical, standardized info boxes for chemical substances, but even in those cases, were an editor to challenge the material, it would be incumbent on editors to ensure that the entries can be tracked to a cited RS." [7]

I see. So, if I were suddenly to agree with SPhilbrick, does anybody here think it would be OK if I went and removed the jersey numbers and heights of the NCAA players from these BLPs, saying that SPhilbrick thought this kind of deletion was OK in the case of Paul Krugman, so why can't I do it to NCAA basketball players? You might argue, "But wait, that's like you don't want to do the work!" Yeah, I've heard that from SPhilbrick, too:

"Removing uncited material is an improvement. [*Gasp* - invariably?] It takes time and effort to search for relevant text and citations. [I did that work, and he still deleted the information I added] The record will show I've done that thousands of times. However, at the time I saw this entry, I had neither the time nor the interest to do the necessary research to support it. [my emph. added - YK]"[8].

What I see: he wants to dictate how others should improve articles, even when his own deletions of those (admittedly weak) improvements are at least at the verge of, if not over the line into, WP:BLP violation. And yet it seems he's quite hypocritical in the application of his own high standards: the articles he's originated violate them left and right. Yakushima (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Above, Sphilbrick remarks "good point" and makes "fixes" to basketball article minutiae (IMO, unnecessarily bulking out article text to illuminate minor data already adequately covered in infoboxes, but that's neither here nor there for this discussion.) Curiously (as he would say), he takes time to do that, but he doesn't take the time to answer my main objection, despite my many repetitions of it. Here's my main beef yet again: his deletions of infobox entries were in violation of WP:BLP, elevating a guideline over a policy. I've never seen where he's answered that objection to all of his infobox deletions from the influences list at Paul Krugman. OK, I miss things. I have missed things several times, in discussion here and on his talk page. Maybe he can point out where he did address that overridingly important point. (Assuming, that is, that he can stop scrutinizing tree bark and refocus on a forest view.)

For now, I've simply restored the influences list (little as I like it - and I really don't), and I have gotten a start on getting into compliance with the guideline for economist infobox influences lists - it's as good a guideline as you can get, for such a lousy bit of metadata. But if I need to leave the job of complying with that policy guideline (a difficult job in the case of this BLP), I won't ever leave the job of keeping Paul Krugman from looking like a dinosaur in his own technical field, when he definitely is not. Yakushima (talk) 03:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

One wonderful things about this world is that different people can have different interests. Wikipedia caters to that world, and goes into much detail on many subjects. Some editors despair at the exhaustive treatment of Pokémon, but I applaud it. While I haven't read any of those articles, and hope I never will, I accept that many people do like them, and I think it is a great thing that Wikipedia can cater to so many disparate interests.

An editor may think that basketball uniform numbers are minutiae. That's fine, I think influences on economists are Inside baseball². And despite beliefs to the contrary, I am not uninterested in economic issues. My daughter once looked at my desk in surprise, when she noticed the same Econ textbook she was using in class. Obviously, it wasn't the one I used when I took econ. She asked why I had it, and I explained that I had heard good things about the textbook, so I bought it for pleasure reading. She was gobsmacked at the notion one would buy an econ textbook voluntarily. However, while I am intensely interested in Economics and Politics and the views of Krugman, I am not so interested in how he arrived at those views. I understand some people are, just as I am interested in why a basketball player chooses to wear a certain number, but accept that not everyone shares that interest.

We do have an obligation to present material to our readers in a consistent way, while recognizing that exceptions can occur, in exceptional circumstances. Why is the infobox in the upper right, instead or the lower left or some other place? The actual location isn't critical, but it would be a disservice to our readers to make the individual placement the whim each editor.

Similarly, by adopting a convention that infobox material is a summarization of what is in the article, any reader, anywhere in the world, reading an article about Pokemon, basketball players or economists can either just read the infobox, to get an overview of some standardized key points, secure in the knowledge that the material is generally discussed in the text, or can just read the text, skipping the infobox, secure in the knowledge that they will read everything Wikipedia has to say on the subject (or they can look at both). If we regularly change the location of the infobox, change what is included, and change our concept of what goes where, it would make our articles a mishmash. Again, exceptions can and do occur, but they ought to occur only when a consensus of editors agrees that an exception to a guideline is a net benefit to the reader.

Sorry, I'm going on too long, but I'll elaborate any aspect if anyone disagrees with what I think is common sense, and adherence to the key goals of the project.--SPhilbrickT 16:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's my main beef yet again: his deletions of infobox entries were in violation of WP:BLP, elevating a guideline over a policy. In a word , NO. I've ignored it because I thought it was too silly a notion to be taken seriously. I still do. If you wish to pursue it, the right venue is BLPN--SPhilbrickT 16:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Parameter naming

In the section Consistency between infoboxes, the third-to-last bullet point cites {{Infobox person}} as an example of using consistent parameters, pointing to the |birth_date= parameter as its example. The next bullet point then says "Multi-word parameter names should be separated with spaces", which seems to contradict the example just given. Why highlight something that's effectively breaking the Mos? I did some searching to see if this was discussed before and found that it was mentioned back in October 2011: Archive 6: Underscores in parameter names. That led me to Template talk:Infobox person#Parameter naming standards where the topic was discussed for a day. That discussion points out that both spaced and underscored parameters are very widely used. I don't really have any vested interest here -- I was coming here to review what Wikipedia did for ideas on how to handle stuff on a non-Wikipedia wiki. But it seems to me that it could be worthwhile to either revise the MoS to allow both spaces and underlines, or revise the example in the previous bullet to use something else that actually conforms with the MoS. – Zawersh 09:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

As a participant in that discussion, I agree that the current situation is illogical and unhelpful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Placement of infobox titles

Has there been any previous discussion about the preferred placement of titles of infoboxes? Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that most infoboxes place the title within the rectangular borders of the infobox, but there are are some exceptions (see for example {{drugbox}}). The reason I ask is that the placement of the title in {{infobox protein}} and {{infobox protein family}} was recently changed from appearing within the box to being placed on top of the box (see this discussion). I prefer the original placement of the title within the borders, but I would be interested to know what others think. Boghog (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in some cases ad nauseum. See WP:BIKESHED. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this is a minor issue, but it is an appropriate subject for a manual of style, if for no other reason, to promote a consistent look across various articles. If no previous consensus has been established, that would be helpful to know. The last thing I want is a extended discussion. I was hoping to find a persuasive argument one way or the other to quickly resolve this issue. Boghog (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for my lack of clarity; I wasn't complaining that you'd raised the matter, nor trying to discourage you from doing so further, merely expressing exasperation at the lack of progress with issues such as Chris C describes, below. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and I now understand what you were getting at. Likewise I apologize for being overly defensive. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that the semantic benefit of using an HTML <caption> element to display the title outweighs the occasional aesthetic disapproval caption-style titles have from sighted editors. Both styles are broadly deployed. In the particular case of the protein boxes, the edits were to bring greater consistency with {{drugbox}}, which has used the caption style for some time. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Quite; accessibility and standards should trump personal preferences. As an aside, and having now viewed the protein boxes, wouldn't their conversion to {{Infobox}} be a good idea? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

We're gradually getting there, but the codebase (which was originally hairier than Cousin It) is not entirely compatible with a conversion at this time to my knowledge. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This line of argumentation seems to be a case of the tail wagging the dog. The first priority should be clarity for the average reader and not "sematic benefit". The {{drugbox}} for quite some time displayed the title within the boarders of infobox. This was changed in this edit with apparently no discussion. Furthermore there is much more overlap between articles containing the {{infobox enzyme}}, {{infobox protein}}, {{infobox protein family}}, and {{GNF Protein box}}, than with the {{drugbox}}. Two of these four infoboxes currently display the title within the border of the infobox while the second two were recently changed without discussion. This set of four infoboxes are frequently stack on top of each other in the same article (see for example Catalase, Reverse transcriptase). IMHO when multiple infoboxes are stacked on top of each other, it is clearer to include the title within the box than on top of it. Boghog (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that argument is that after multiple discussions there's still no clear consensus as to whether or not the caption style actually is any less clear, stacking or no stacking. There are parties who argue both ways. Furthermore, while the semantic benefits may not be clear to sighted readers, they are clear to other consumers, and the alternative is to encumber those consumers for what is still a disputed gain to clarity for the sighted. The HTML standard does not provide for the facility of having the caption inside the table, though I believe hacks which would add an external border have been suggested in the past. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)