Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

TfD for Infobox journalist

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 22#Template:Infobox journalist. -- Trevj (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Problem with the Purpose `explanation'

According to this explanation an infobox with zero content would be ideal. This is of course not the case!!! The infobox is meant to be very informative--and should contain the most important, and only the most important, verifiable facts listed in the article in a very concise/compact format. What the 'explanation' available now meant to say is that the infobox content should be concise, and kept to reasonable overall dimensions, such as 300 x 256 px, as well as summarizing the essence--the most important facts only, and also that it can contain only one key image, etc. The lines should be kept short, and each line of text should terminated after some 5 or 6 short words at most, to match an image width, if an image was included.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bci2 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 14 March 2012‎ (UTC)

Hmm, that Purpose was injected in late 2010. This discussion of sourcing ensued. I think it needs to be revised to be in keeping with wp:V and reflect normal practice.LeadSongDog come howl! 13:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Access to guidance for editors

Here is the document explaining the fields for companies infobox...

Template:Infobox_company/doc

It's in use on these pages

cisco facebook google

Choose one of those pages and if you want to edit them its difficult for users to access the guidance on how to fill in those fields.

It would be a great if there was an [edit] link for the info boxes, just like there are for other parts of the page. You could then display the guidance below the edit box, or provide a link to the help page describing how to fill in the fieldsScottonsocks (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Style and formatting

I came here to see what guidance was given on style or formatting - but there didn't really seem to be any - so I added a "work in progress" attempt. see this diff

• See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Style, color and formatting

Note - To be honest I haven't experienced many problems with infobox styling - unlike navboxes. However some editors appear to use abitrary and random colors eg British Rail Class 444 is blue, British Rail Class 380 red, British Rail Class 360 purple! I particularly like the shade of green used on British Rail Class 350 .. Generally harmless but not here British Rail Class 455 where WP:COLOR is ignored (black text on red - can't read it..)

I think the statement in WP:NAV could be applied here : Navigation templates Infoboxes are not arbitrarily decorative - so I added that.. Perhaps a link to Wikipedia:Don't edit war over the colour of templates is also relavent too. Please feedback.. Perhaps there are other issues on formatting that others have noticed? Oranjblud (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Placement of infobox titles (take two)

This thread is a revival of previous discussion: Concerning the preferred placement of titles of infoboxes (above or inside the rectangular borders of the infobox), it was stated that:

Furthermore, while the semantic benefits may not be clear to sighted readers, they are clear to other consumers Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

In digging into this further, it appears that the semantic benefit of placing the title above the box when using assistive technologies may be over stated or even in some cases non-existent.

For example from Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_115#Infobox_headings:

"As a user of the screen reader JAWS, I don't care which one [title above or inside] is used, so long as at least one of them is used and if both are used at the same time, they provide complementary information." Graham87 14:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

In addition, when I turn on Universal Access in the Safari web browser, when the title of an infobox is placed inside the infobox, what is spoken is "column 1 of 12, row 1, <title of infobox>". When the title is placed above the infobox, the title is skipped over and not even read (while everything else on the web page is read including what is around and inside the infobox). I don't know if this is a bug in Universal Access, but if a sight impaired consumer uses the present implementation of Universal Access, placing the title above the infobox is a decided disadvantage.

Finally for all consumers (both sighted and sight impaired), consistency of the layout of infoboxes is an advantage. When a large majority of infoboxes place the title inside the box, seeing one outside the box jarring and doesn't look right. The same applies to a non-sighted consumers. If a non-sighted consumer is used to hearing titles presented as "column 1 of n, row 1", from experience that consumer will know and expect that the title will be presented that way. Boghog (talk) 08:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

I've opened a section here about adding to the MoS that infoboxes are optional, and that where no consensus can be reached we defer to the first major contributor, per WP:STYLEVAR. Leaving this note for anyone watching this page but not that one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It might make more sense to have that information centralized here, with all the other stuff about infoboxes, rather than adding it to the main MOS page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: No Italics for Chinese

Some fields, such as book title in Template:Infobox book, use italics font. However italics font is bad at least for Chinese. I hope there is a way to avoid italics font when it comes to Chinese.114.25.189.86 (talk) 03:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

As documented at {{infobox book}}, you should set |italic title=no when italicisation of the book title is inappropriate. The general case of italicisation of Chinese text is covered at MOS:Ety so should not need to also be dealt with at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for comments - Nick Drake

Hello,

you are invited to participate at this discussion. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 13:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Style guidance

A bot archived a previous message http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style%2FInfoboxes&diff=517335322&oldid=517196901

As the addition has been in the MOS for a while with no objections I have removed the 'proposed' tag from the main page diff .Oranjblud (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Parameter names normally use underscores, not spaces

At MOS:INFOBOX#Consistency between infoboxes, bullet 8 says "Multi-word parameter names should be separated with spaces, thus: |first second=". I looked at the popular templates {{Infobox person}}, {{Infobox country}}, {{Infobox city}}, {{Infobox football team}} and each has two (or more) word parameters that are sep'd by underscores, not spaces. Should this point be changed or removed? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd say so. I raised this point here in October 2011, in conjunction with discussion at Parameter naming standards for Infobox person. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 29 December 2012 (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.

Metadata explanation

The text:

Using an infobox also makes the data within it available to third party re-users such as DBpedia in a granular, machine readable format, often using microformats.

has been removed, because:

it's not the infobox that facilitates this, it's the classes within the infobox

This is ridiculous; the text should be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

so explain how an infobox generates metadata without any additional microformat classes, and explain how a navbox or table with microformat classes does not generate metadata. it seems as though the microformat classes are the distinguishing characteristic here, not the fact that it is an infobox. Frietjes (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

DBpedia doesn't rely on the classes (though it may use them) for the extraction of metadata from infoboxes. An infobox, including the classes that are part of it can generate metadata available to other re-users. That's why the wording says "often", not "always". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

so, DBpedia doesn't parse {{persondata}} or any other part of the article? again, it appears that the fact that it is an infobox isn't what makes it able to be parsed, it is the use of a common structured presentation of data. Frietjes (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Where did I say anything about Persondata? Again: DBpedia parses infoboxes. It may or may not make use of microformat classes when it does so, but it does not rely solely on them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

again, I do not believe the statement, "using an infobox also makes the data within it available to third party re-users such as DBpedia", is entirely true. it is not the fact that the data is in an infobox that makes it available to DBpedia. if you look at the DBpedia content you will see that it has plenty of data that does not come from the infobox. so the infobox is not the reason why the information is available. Frietjes (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The statement does not say that the infobox is the only place from which DBpedia extracts data. The presence on DBpedia of some data that is not from an en.Wikipedia infobox does not mean that DBpedia does not use our infoboxes; it does. Note also "such as". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

the statement is misleading, and should be either reworded or removed as off-topic. Frietjes (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The statement does not mislead. It is entirely factual and accurate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to say I agree with IllaZilla and Frietjes that this doesn't belong in the purpose section. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Why, when it is one of the purposes of infoboxes? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that it is one of the purposes. Clearly third-party databases can harvest information from articles without infoboxes, so this is not really the purpose of an infobox. Any undergraduate computer science student familiar with natural language processing could write a program to parse prose. Most of the information is in the article in multiple places. For example, for people, we have birth/death information in the infobox, in the prose, in the persondata, and in the categories. All of these sources can be parsed by a computer, so if we are worried about making our content machine readable, we shouldn't be overly concerned about infoboxes. There are very good reasons for infoboxes, but this is not the real purpose. The real purpose is to present information in a concise format for our readers. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

What third-party databases can do is immaterial; that they do use infoboxes is irrefutable; as is that many of our infoboxes do emit metadata via microformats. That infoboxes are useful to humans in the way that they present information is not disputed; that is one of their purposes, but it is not the only one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

they use the entire article, not just the infobox. hence, this is not a purpose of the infobox. Frietjes (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

They may use other things also; but they specifically use our infoboxes. I'm not sure why this is unclear to you: our article says so, as does their documentation. Nor are they the only users of the metadata emitted by our infoboxes. You've again removed the section under discussion, while noting that it is being discussed. Why could you not wait until we have consensus? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

you appear to be the only one arguing for the addition of this statement. and no, most third party sites don't specifically use our infoboxes, they specifically use the entire article which includes the infobox, the categories, any other tables, and the prose. Frietjes (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

And there is only you and one other arguing against it. Wikipedia is not, as I'm sure you're aware, a democracy. Where did I say anything about "most third party sites"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

of course you conveniently forgot Plastikspork, who commented in this thread, and IllaZilla who reverted your edits. Frietjes (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Plastikspork is the "one other" to whom I referred; and IllaZilla hasn't made any argument in this section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is a doubt about the accuracy of the statement "Using an infobox also makes the data within it available to third party re-users such as DBpedia in a granular, machine readable format, often using microformats." So may we progress beyond that point, or is it necessary to provide references? What seems to be contested is whether the statement deserves a place in the section entitled "Purpose of an infobox". I have no doubt whatsoever that when I add an infobox to an article, one of the main purposes I have in mind is to make the data within it available to third-party re-users. Without that, I would have great difficulty in convincing myself that an infobox is providing anything more than a well-crafted opening paragraph of the lead would do. And in full disclosure, when I encounter editors who are unaware of the ability of infoboxes to deliver that functionality, it is always useful to be able to point them to the section in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes #Purpose of an infobox so that they know I'm not the only person who wants to provide this service. I see no good reason to remove a statement that is accurate and reflects the reality of the use of infoboxes. --RexxS (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

yes, a citation is needed for an important 3rd party site that requires an infobox to obtain metadata. as I am sure you know, DBpedia does not require an infobox to obtain metadata. they do, however, heavily leverage templated information, matching parameter names with values. since not all templates are infoboxes, then we can certainly agree that it is not the fact that it is an infobox which makes it easier to parse. it is the fact that the data is presented in a uniform format that can be easily parsed by a machine. for example, DBpedia also parses tables. Frietjes (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is talking about "an important 3rd party site that requires an infobox to obtain metadata". I'm sure you're familiar with strawman, so perhaps we could get back on track by me asking if we actually need a reference for the statement Using an infobox also makes the data within it available to third party re-users? Does it make the data available or doesn't it? Once you have conceded the truth of that, we can go on to look at:

• whether DBpedia is such a third-party user
• if an infobox makes data available in a granular, machine readable format, often using microformats

That should complete the necessary verification of the accuracy of the statement as written (rather than an imaginary statement that you're objecting to). --RexxS (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

templates and formatted tables make data available in a granular, machine readable format, often using microformats. an infobox is a template and a table, but not all templates and tables are infoboxes. Frietjes (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Good, we're making progress. We have agreement then that:

(1) infoboxes make data available in a granular, machine readable format (often using microformats)

(2) but not every entity that makes data available in a granular, machine readable format (often using microformats) is an infobox

from (2) above, we can agree that an infobox is not required to make data within it available to third party re-users in a granular, machine readable format, so we won't be writing anything into MOS that says required. But from (1), it is now crystal clear that we can write "an infobox makes the data within it available to third-party re-users in a granular, machine readable format, often using microformats." So we just have to establish whether DBpedia is an example of such a third-party re-user, right? --RexxS (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Collapsed or hidden 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.

---

A small number of editors insist on hiding infoboxes inside collapsed sections; or moving them to the foot of articles. Recent examples include:

• Peter Planyavsky
• Little Moreton Hall
• Renaissance Theatre Company
• Montacute House
• Cathedral of Blessed Mother Teresa in Pristina

Is this acceptable? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a not a good idea. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

It can be a good idea, where there is objection to a conventional infobox, and is likely to become increasingly useful, as infoboxes are loaded up with less important data that is excessive at the top of the page. Johnbod (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you might have a misconception about Wikidata does or will do. --Izno (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

If there is an issue with too much data being loaded into infoboxes, then that's an issue to address for whomever (editors/project) that maintain the infobox to start trimming excessive data, or use means (as Izno notes with the video game template) to collapse less-critical data within the infobox but still have it there. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

But that's inconsistent with the view expressed by Andy Mabbett that the purpose of infoxes is to emit metadata. Surely the more we have of that the better? George Ponderevo (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I have never made the false claim that "the purpose [singular] of infoxes [sic] is to emit metadata". That is one of their purposes, but not the only one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

There's an important difference between what information is just "excessive" and what is "excessive at the top of the page" (meaning always visible) which is what I said. Once the box is collapsed people can load them up with what they like for all I care. Experience shows that while they are always visible there will be endless arguments over what information justifies inclusion. Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

the way to do this would be to add the option to add 'collapsible collapsed' to the class in {{infobox person}}, {{Infobox historic site}}, etc., not use some hack of div tags and html tables. Frietjes (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

That would be one approach, but another problem with infoboxes is that they constrain the size of a lead image, so the width of a collapsed/expanded infobox really ought to mirror the size of the lead image to make the alignment look decent. Not a massive problem I agree, but one that would need to be addressed. George Ponderevo (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Where there is consensus to allow that option at the template page itself, yes. Such exists at Template:Infobox video game (though I don't agree with it). Otherwise, no. --Izno (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• If there is no consensus either way for including an infobox, it seems like a reasonable compromise to me. If people want to see it they can click it; if javascript is turned off it expands by default anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• I am completely against info boxes, except on pages requiring statistics (sports people who have done little else but get laid and kick/hit a ball) and mathematical, chemical and scientific type pages. On historical pages, especially buildings, info-boxes either over simplify or give false information. This is the best compromise that there's going to be and the only one that I will agree to.  Giano  19:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

If an infobox contains false information, then the information should be corrected, just like any other error on a page. This assertion of "false information" has been going on for years, and it has always been a bogus argument. - Denimadept (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Information becomes false and misleading, when it's so complex that it cannot be correctly explained in a box in five words.  Giano  08:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It took you more than five words to explain that, so I take it that you're being false and misleading. You might want to work on that. - Denimadept (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

You might want to work on not being a flippant and prattissh idiot. If you can't make a sensible contribution, go and enjoy your own company.  Giano  19:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Claiming that information becomes inaccurate when it's not a sound-bite is clearly incorrect. In other words, your original statement, which I commented on, was clearly wrong. - Denimadept (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not "clearly wrong"—if you accept the tacit predicate that the "Information" that "becomes false and misleading" is the information in the infobox. It wasn't very artfully phrased, but you could have figured it out if you'd put in half the energy you spent on being patronizing and pedantic. Choess (talk) 04:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

*sigh* Gratuitously rude of me, and for that I apologize, and it also detracts from my point: we should be discussing the salient point—that infoboxes can encourage or even force editors to over-summarize facts to the point of inaccuracy—rather than each other's language or behavior. Choess (talk) 06:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I deserved it, at least somewhat. The thing is, any information that's incorrect can be fixed in an infobox just as easily as in the rest of the article. I don't see how it can be otherwise. - Denimadept (talk) 06:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I think what Giano meant is that information that was accurate in the article can become inaccurate when it's distilled into a summary in an infobox; a compression artifact, so to speak. Cf. Dilbert. For instance, how would one denote an occupation for Emperor Norton? Fortunately, no one has tried in his current infobox, but you can see how "real estate speculator", "emperor", and "mendicant" would all mislead through omission—he wasn't in real estate for most of his life, he was an emperor only by sufferance, as it were, and yet he kept too much state to be a beggar. Obviously it's worse for some things than others: filling in, say, chemical infoboxes or taxoboxes is likely to be pretty clear-cut, but articles on biography, architecture, literature, music and so forth are more likely to have these qualities that defy classification without explanation. Mind you, that's OK if the parties editing the article agree that they'll just omit that field from the infobox because it can't be concisely and accurately summarized; but then that provokes other people because the infobox isn't emitting the maximum amount of metadata, and sometimes they jam an inaccurate summary in so that the field can appear in the infobox. Choess (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

There's no proper way to summarize Emperor Norton, other than, maybe, "mad man". Still, I think I get your point. Some entries in some infoboxes don't belong there. I concentrate on {{infobox bridge}} and similar, which don't have these problems, as long as you don't listen to User:Wetman, so I can't speak to issues others might have. - Denimadept (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• There have been arguments for years over whether infoboxes are appropriate for English country house articles, which is why this approach was introduced a few years ago into Montacute House and more recently into Little Moreton Hall, so this is an attempt to give the best of both worlds. Infoboxes are in general often too long anyway, and distort the article's layout, but anyone who wants to see it has only to make a single click. Also, it's not infrequently that case that for some articles, in particular short articles such as Pendine Museum of Speed, the infobox completely overwhelms the article if it's not collapsed. I really don't see the problem here, and I hope that other editors will pick up on this approach. Contrary to what Andy Mabbett claims, the infobox isn't hidden, it's simply collapsed. George Ponderevo (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree some infoboxes are too long. Some of the stuff in {{infobox bridge}} really doesn't belong there. But I'm not willing to fight it. A better answer may be to figure out a replacement for the "infobox" concept. Maybe a pop-up? Ick, I just had to reswallow my lunch. Well, maybe another way, then. Some kind of summary page or such? I mean, hyperlinks are not exactly foreign here. I dunno. - Denimadept (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• • The infobox is hidden, by wrapping it in another HTML element, a DIV, which is not part of the infobox, and which styled as collapsed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• The choice of whether to use an infobox or not is up to page editors, but if one is going to include data in collapsed infobox that otherwise would have gone in a top-of-page infobox, it is improper to hide that data as such. Either use the infobox and incorporate the data into that, or don't and put the data into the prose. --MASEM (t) 20:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• On a properly written page (per MOS), the data is always already in the 'prose' - and should always be easily available in the lead section. This is why so many people don't see the need for an unsightly, misleading and distorting info-box just a few millimetres away.  Giano  21:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Prose yes, but not necessarily in the lead. For example, in multiperson creative works (like films and video games) while the infobox will have the major participants in the film, the lead would be inappropriate to list them all out (most films, for example, highlight the director and the top two or three actors). An infobox should be tabular data that is repeated in detail somewhere in the prose that quickly summarize the major details of the article which can be briefly represented by that. That data should not be hidden if the infobox is present. --MASEM (t) 04:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

But that is exactly what the lead is supposed to do. If information is not worthy of inclusion in the lead, it should not be in an info box. They acheive the same purpose millimietres away from each other. If the lead is properly written, the box is redundant. Or are you saying that in a film like Ben-Her the box should stretch the length of page and into the next listing every actor? Giano  08:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that's exactly what he's saying, thus demonstrating the idiocy of tying the infobox to this so-called metadata generation. There are so many more elegant ways to achieve a better result that I find this whole discussion rather astonishing. Is there no vision here, no imagination? George Ponderevo (talk) 10:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I work on bridge articles. Putting all the stats in the lead would not make sense. You put basics in the lead. If anyone wants to know more, they read the infobox and/or the rest of the article. - Denimadept (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

As this points out, the infobox is used for some readers as to effectively distill down the basic facts of the article that they need quickly, without having to scan through text, in a consistent format across articles of that type. As to the film infobox, you'll note most rarely list any actor - I think the Film project has them limit to the 5-7 principle ones (with a cast section later to fill in the rest). But not all 5-7 actors may be appropriate to mention in the lead if it just weighs it down, and most I've seen typically list the 2-3 leading roles. The point is still that while all the data in the infobox should be used in the article prose somewhere, it doesn't need to be all in the lead - though clearly there should be some duplication there. --MASEM (t) 17:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• But the data isn't hidden, it's simply in a collapsed infobox. Can we please stop referring to collapsed infoboxes as hiding anything? George Ponderevo (talk) 04:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

If it's not visible when I go to the page, and I have to do something to get it to show up, it's hidden. You're not going to get agreement on this. - Denimadept (talk) 06:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

All you have to do to get the data to show up is to read the article, nothing is being hidden. George Ponderevo (talk) 06:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

You keep saying that, and I will keep repeating that IT IS NOT SHOWING when I get to the page. I have to TAKE AN ACTION to see it. That's hidden. You can word it how ever you like, but that doesn't change the facts. - Denimadept (talk) 07:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

You may repeat your misrepresentation as often as you like, doesn't make it true though. If the infobox was hidden there would nothing for you to click on to see it, it would be hidden. Geddit it? George Ponderevo (talk) 10:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I stand by my statement. Is the infobox showing? No, you have to click on something to see it. That's hidden. You may continue to refute the obvious, but it just makes you look silly. - Denimadept (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I really don't think there's any call for that kind of abuse. Is everyone who disagrees with you silly or just me? George Ponderevo (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I apologize. George, it's not just you. You're just the latest one in a series, that I know of, who have been fighting infoboxes for years. There was an argument of this type relating to a major bridge article (Ponte Vecchio) back in 2008. The opponent there denied that the bridge was a bridge, so the bridge infobox was not needed. He used similar arguments, "disinfobox" was a memorable one, and the result was a collapsed infobox. It got to a point where the prize wasn't worth the effort. Later, he went away and others restored the infobox. Or maybe I did. I forget. I have to concede that there are places where an infobox is perhaps less desirable. Personally, I'm unclear on where those are, as every place I've seen them seems to be helped by them, but that's me. - Denimadept (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

But I'm not fighting infoboxes, and I've never removed one. What I'm against is the screen real estate they occupy, the way they constrain the size of the lead image, and the impact they have on the article's visual presentation when they bleed out of the lead. Take a look at Albert Bridge, London for instance, with its ridiculous postage stamp image inside the infobox. George Ponderevo (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

That's been a problem for quite a while. The issue is how to make a useful image which shows the bridge w/o including a lot of extra unneeded stuff. I'm not aware of any pat answers. Check out Longfellow Bridge. I cut that image out of a larger one at File:Longfellow_pru.jpg, which is wonderful, but had too much in it. The best answer, IMHO, would be for someone to make a better image and use that in the infobox. We're also trying to arrange that for Hoover Dam. The image there is wonderful, by Ansel Adams, but it doesn't show the new bridge, so we (the people working on that article) would like a new one. It's not an easy problem. We don't want to make the infobox wider, or it will take too much of the layout. - Denimadept (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a very easy problem to solve; don't include an image in the collapsed infobox, and as in Montacute Hall, place it separately at the head of the article. Would you at least agree that many infoboxes are way too long, and consequently distort the article's layout, forcing text to be squeezed between images and the extended infobox? Take a look at SS Eastland for instance. Isn't that a clear case where at least some collapsing would be beneficial? Isn't it also a clear and explicit breach of WP:MOSIM? "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, and between an image and an infobox or similar" caused directly by the presence of the infobox? George Ponderevo (talk) 13:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear: The infoboxes in the articles that Andy Mabbett listed are not collapsed. They are not collapsed. The infoboxes are wrapped in a {{hidden}} template. That template collapses and hides its content (the infobox). The correct solution to this "problem" (not a problem in my view) is to modify the infobox; the solution is not to extract certain parts of the infobox (image and its caption) and then enclose the now incomplete infobox with {{hidden}} and then apply custom css fixes to make it look ok. That is ugly and wrong. Any collapsing mechanism must be incorporated into the infobox.

The perception of article layout distortion is in the eye of the beholder. This beholder does not perceive an infobox as a distortion.

Ship article "infoboxes" are tables that include several infoboxes (image, characteristics, career, and sometimes, NRHP}. Does SS Eastland violate WP:MOSIM? Perhaps. The imperative though is to place the infobox on the right. But if the infobox is collapsible as in Little Moreton Hall the "Avoid sandwiching ..." guideline is violated when the infobox is visible.

There may be no perfect solution, but wrapping an infobox in {{hidden}} is one of the least perfect.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

There's no "must" about it, and "least perfect" makes no sense, as "perfect is an absolute term, not a relative one. Why not address the WP:MOSIM issue I raised earlier? Including images in infoboxes was always a silly idea anyway. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

If a headlight on my car is out of alignment, I don't duct-tape a flashlight to the fender and call it good. I fix the headlight's alignment. I am not conceding that infoboxes are broken, but if the consensus goes with you, the thing that must be fixed is the infobox.

Ok, to restate: There may be no perfect solution, but wrapping an infobox in {{hidden}} is a poor solution because it requires custom CSS, violates the tenant that templates hide the details of implementation from the editor, and separates infobox content from the infobox. These are all things that I've stated previously in this discussion.

Actually, I did address WP:MOSIM when I wrote: But if the infobox is collapsible as in Little Moreton Hall the "Avoid sandwiching ..." guideline is violated when the infobox is visible. A {{gallery}} in the SS Eastland article at the bottom of §The Eastland disaster will resolve that issue. That fix will work for Little Moreton Hall §History and fix the WP:IMAGELOCATION violation as well: Avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection, ...

So you think that images in infoboxes is silly. Claims made with out supporting evidence can be as easily dismissed.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I provided an example of where the constraint imposed by the infobox on the size of a lead image was clearly detrimental to the that article. And can we please stop using this word "silly" as a synonym for "anything I don't agree with"?

The solution to this problem is indeed to fix all the infoboxes, and to move the images out, but that's never going to happen, and equally clearly never going to get agreement on whether infoboxes are a good thing or a bad thing for certain categories of articles. So in the meantime collapsing the infoboxes as in Montacute Hall is the only practical alternative to this kind of interminable and ultimately unproductive discussion. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

If an image is constrained by the info box then perhaps that image isn't the correct image for that most important location in the article. Find a better image. I disagree with your assertion that the "only practical alternative" is this custom {{hidden}} template wrapper. Find a better image. As an experiment, I edited the infobox at Montacute House to include the lead image and set |image_size=300 (I also set |map_width=300). I could not see how, in doing so, the infobox "was clearly detrimental to the that article."

Sure, we can stop using the word "silly", but I must note that I have never used it as a 'synonym for anything "I don't agree with"'. I have used it once (now twice) in this whole discussion and when I did use it I was parroting your use of the word.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

To make this easier to navigate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Masem, a major function of an infobox is to provide metadata. That metadata is emitted whether the box is collapsed or uncollapsed, but not if the box does not exist (or at least not yet - possible improvements might resolve this). In cases where a normal infobox is undesirable or contested, this solution allows that metadata to be emitted while respecting the needs of the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• I started the discussion at Talk:Montacute House#Infobox removal back in 2009 when an infobox which had existed in the article for over a year was removed. Just to reiterate a few of the points there... Discussion about the appearance being "messed up" by the infobox reflects a particular point of view. I am in favour of them and having watched many other users of wikipedia (mostly students) have noticed this is the first thing they look at - particularly when they are looking for a "quick fact". People use/read wikipedia in different ways, a 30 second, 3 minute and 30 minute version of information has been advocated as meeting the needs of different users (or the same user at different times) and therefore providing the information in different formats is helpful to them - why shouldn't we provide it? This may also relate to research on Generation X and Generation Y and the different ways in which they consume or use information. As there were strong objections to the infobox on Montacute House a compromise/consensus was reached to use the collapsed infobox, which existed without problem until last month, and I haven't seem any strong arguments against that consensus. My opinion is that we should include appropriate infoboxes where possible. If there are strong objections then the collapsed version provides the next best option. If this is best achieved by including 'collapsible collapsed' (or similar) in the syntax of the infobox rather than " some hack of div tags and html tables" then I don't see any problem with that (although the coding would be beyond me).— Rod ^talk 20:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Rod; he and I have both heavily edited Montacute House (and keep a close eye on it) the collapsed info-box was a compromise that suited us both. Until I mentioned it last nonth as an example of a reasonable compromise which caused Andy Mabbett to go rabid, there were no problems with it for years.  Giano  21:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I invite you to strike your false allegation that I "went rabid". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oh dear, my English can be malapromatic at times and show limited vocabulary; what is is that you think I meant by rabid perhaps I have he wrong word?  Giano  13:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Very interesting solution for pages were an infobox is not really wanted. However accessibility is a concern - makes us have to click on "show" to see the info. As a person with a disability i see this a yet another obstacle that impedes me from seeing all. I have to (with great effort) try and get my mouse pointer on that very small "show" tab just to derive serviceable information from the infobox. That said its better then no info at all in this format.Moxy (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I imagine there is probably a css or js solution to make collapsed infoboxes uncollapsed by default, but not make navboxes uncollapsed by default. and, at the same time, fix the print version. Frietjes (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I have made a js solution, see #Collapsing most infoboxes using javascript. Frietjes (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Articles on musical subjects already have "hidden data" in the form of boxes to click on to hear an audio clip. Do you equally see that as some kind of additional obstacle Moxy? And in the specific examples that triggered this discussion (Montacute House and Little Moreton Hall) what "serviceable information" do you find in the infobox that's not already available in the lead? George Ponderevo (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes they are just as hard to access - the biggest obstacle I face on a daily biases is {{Navbox with collapsible groups}} sometimes I will have to click on 4 or 5 "shows" just to find one link. I have MS and my shaking is bad sometimes and makes it hard to stabilizes my mouse on the very very small "show" tabs. ... I also logout all the time when trying to press "my contributions" and "my watchlist" LOL. As for why dont I just read the text - Infoboxes have maps and main images I cant see unless I open the box.Moxy (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Moxy (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that Moxy, and I can't even begin to imagine the problems you must face on a daily basis. There must surely be something better we can do though, such as giving you a bigger target to aim at in the collapsed infobox? George Ponderevo (talk) 01:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Not a big deal I just do "Ctrl +" to make the show tab big. As for the rest of my life I have a wonderful wife that is very good to me and a Son that is my doctor for the past 10 years. This is all a bit off topic and sorry that its gone on so long.... but others may find the "Ctrl +" option useful when encountering these boxes.Moxy (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Ugly, just ugly. Not only how they all look – none look the same in a side-by-side comparison – but each of those {{hidden}} templates in the articles listed by Editor Andy Mabbett had to be individually crafted with CSS to get them to look as they do: ugly, just ugly. The purpose of a lot of Wikipedia's templates is to hide the details of implementation from the users and to present a uniform look-and-feel to the reader.

If we must to have collapsible info boxes, the collapse should be happening within the infobox. The lead image and its caption should be inside the infobox but not hidden when the infobox is collapsed.

And yeah, I'm in favor of non-collapsed infoboxes though I will admit that there are some that are a bit too cluttered. I am not in favor of wrapping infoboxes with {{hidden}} templates.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• If we could just put this discussion to bed than we could very easily come up with a solution that doesn't require any manual tweaking, but until it is I for one am disinclined to put any effort into such a solution. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Re Montacute House infobox - that's not a big infobox (nor cluttered either IMHO), this is a big infobox and on a Featured Article. If editors have problems with infobox style or layout that's a specific infobox problem not a generic problem with infoboxes. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

That's another good example of where the infobox overwhelms the article, and at least a significant part of it ought to be collapsed by default. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• I prefer an open infobox to one that is collapsed, per Moxy, but I prefer a collapsed one to none at all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• I am definitely against hidden boxes. They require javascript. They also have accessibility problems. They also make it unclear what should be printed. If there is too much stuff then the article is too big and should be split. Articles being too big is a real problem whatever some people with fast connections say. Dmcq (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  If you've disabled javascript then you simply see the uncollapsed infobox, so what's the problem? And to repeat myself, the infoboxes aren't being hidden, they're simply being collapsed. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• I am definitely against hidden infoboxes - they exist to provide a basic overview of pertinent details about the article subject for those editors who are looking for specific information - but I would love to see collapsible sections within some of the larger and more detailed infobox templates. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 23:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  They're not hidden, they're collapsed. What's the difference in your mind between collapsible sections in some of the ridiculously detailed infoboxes and coillapsing the infobox itself? In the specific examples that initiated this discussion, what information do you feel was "hidden" from you by collapsing the infoboxes? George Ponderevo (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  The difference is whether the infobox field is information necessary to a basic understanding of the article subject, or whether the field contains information that is specialized and relatively unbounded, but important to have consistent in terms of metadata and access. For example, an infobox on a US interstate highway would have start and end cities, length, and states traversed, but a listing of major exits and interchanges, the length of different grades, and vehicle counts could be so large a data set as to be a good candidate for collapsible sections. So a short interstate, like Interstate 82 would probably have a very manageable listing of exits and interchanges, and an editor would probably not collapse those sections, but something like Interstate 95 could literally have hundreds of important datafields that would be completely ancillary to someone looking for basic information on the roadway, and the technical and specialized data would overwhelm that pertinent information, meaning a reader would be well-served by those sections being collapsed within the I-95 infobox. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 01:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  Let me remind you that there should be no information in an infobox necessary to a basic understanding of the article subject that is not also in the article itself. George Ponderevo (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

To make this easier to navigate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• (e/c * 2) Most of this problem has come about because (a) there is some kind of agreement (and I do not know whether it is any kind of official policy or not) that metadata should be "emitted" in some way; (b) we have an aggressive approach adopted to this by an enthusiast for metadata that has led to problems both in the past and currently, who, for reasons that are not explained, seems to act as if the only way metadata can be "emitted" is to place them in infoboxes (he is curiously silent when asked whether the *only* way metadata can be emitted is by placing them in infoboxes, though, in fact, the answer is "no"); (c) this then has the effect that the two are so firmly linked that if there is any kind of policy about metadata, then that policy drives an implicit policy about infoboxes. (d) This "enforcement of infoboxes by stealth" (for there is no other way to describe it, given the behaviour of some who aggressively plonk infobozes in articles where there is a history of extensive discussion leading to consensus, about their presence in those articles) causes drama, an antagonistic atmosphere, and other problems that, because of the way questions about metadata and infoboxes are answered, (or, in many cases, not answered), causes disruption. My attitude is that the editor responsible for this needs to back off a bit, and let people who have a more understanding and collaborative approach to editing wikipedia have a more prominent role. At the moment, infoboxes and metadata seem to be a "one man show", and that is therefore coloured by aggressive and uncollaborative behaviour on the part of the main editor involved. This editor has had a number of long-term bans from wikipedia, exactly for these reasons and is, arguably, still on "probation" for his problematic behaviour. You can see that I am not alone in this opinion, and ArbCom also agreed with these points in earlier incidents. You can follow the links and the pages that show, what action the community has taken against this editor in the past here. This discussion, initiated by that same editor, is just another incident involving the same issues, dragging in all kinds of editors who have views about infoboxes, solely because, at some point (though it is never made clear), there was a design decision to link metadata (that editor's particular little hobby-horse) with infoboxes. In fact, the whole drama should be defused by unlinking the two and not trying to enforce infoboxes on all articles "by stealth". Then the issue of "hidden infoboxes" (which really means "collapsed infoboxes") would be much defused. I speak as someone who is both in favour of metadata, and of infoboxes, but apparently who respects the views of other editors more than some in this debate.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Let me make it clear that I am in no way against infoboxes in general, but I am against their blanket application where they add very little if anything and impact an article's visual presentation, as in Montacute Hall, Little Moreton Hall, and the Pendle Museum of Speed. On the other hand I'm very much in favour of metadata, from which any number of potential infoboxes could be generated by whoever wanted to see them. What I'm very much against though is this dishonest argument that metadata is dependent on the presence of infoboxes, or that important information is somehow being hidden by collapsing an infobox. What we ought to be doing is to work on a standardised data dictionary, hopefully hosted by Wikidata, which could be used by the mythical visual editor and potentially infobox generators for those who wanted to see one, instead of all the hand-crafting of infoboxes that goes on now. And as I think I've said before, the metadata argument is essentially a dishonest one anyway, as there is no real sense in which the association of a label such as "governing body" with the value "National Trust" can be considered to be metadata. George Ponderevo (talk) 00:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Now you've enjoyed your rant, perhaps you'd like to address the issue at hand, about the visual display of infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• I think this usage is acceptable, at least on a provisional basis. As I said sometime back when Andy Mabbett and Davenbelle/Jack Merridew/Br'er Rabbit were vigorously pushing infoboxes into FACs that lacked them, infoboxes as presently implemented mingle metadata with presentation. In order to make an infobox generate a more comprehensive set of metadata about an article, you are forced to present data in the lead of an article that may be confusing, marginally relevant, or unbalanced. Inevitably, this pits the people with an interest in metadata against the editors who are familiar with the subject matter in a given article and have formed judgements on its presentation. This is why infoboxes have been far more controversial than, say, the "persondata" template, which is pure metadata without any effect on presentation. As several people above have pointed out, and anyone with tuppence worth of knowledge about markup would tell you at once, the long-term solution is to separate data from presentation, so that the decision about which data to prominently display in a box, or whether to have one at all, can be made on a more individual basis. Choess (talk) 05:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Exactly. One could even imagine an option in preferences for whether or not to show infoboxes, the content of which came from Wikidata, not some manually coded infobox or other. Or even an option only to show automatically generated infoboxes, for those in a hurry or with short attention spans. George Ponderevo (talk) 07:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
    • You and other logged-in users already have the option to style infoboxes (class="infobox") to display:none in your User: stylesheet. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - MOS:COLLAPSE states "...boxes that toggle text display between hide and show should not conceal article content, including reference lists, image galleries, and image captions" but "Collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text, and in navboxes". Currently no mention of infoboxes.

I am active - if not an explicit member - of some WP projects that use large (by some people's standards) infoboxes. Should this discussion be publicized more? It think it would be inappropriate for me to mention it in those projects if it isn't as they are likely to be anti-collapsing and would skew the discussion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• An infobox is a "table that consolidate information covered in the main text" - In fact it's a brilliant description of an infobox. I think some people are forgetting that it's the article/text which is important not the infobox.  Giano  14:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• That depends what you're looking for. One of the reasons they're so wildly popular is that frequently our readers are only looking for particular snippets of information, presented in a consistent manner, that they'd rather not poke through the prose for. In any case, summaries of article contents are still integral parts of the articles. What we really want here is a straightforward technical solution which lets editors who dislike infoboxes hide them globally, easily, while not inconveniencing the rest of us. The current hackish solution employed on a handful of arts articles is not the right approach, and certainly shouldn't be rolled out any further. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  We're not talking about hiding infoboxes, despite what Mabbett keeps claiming, we're talking about collapsing them. George Ponderevo (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Potato, potahto. Note that the text on the collapse link is labelled "hide". I'm interested in whatever solution works for the most parties here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It's irrelevant what the text on the collapse link says, and it's easily changed if it bothers you. Its function is to collapse the infobox, agreed? George Ponderevo (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

That's precisely my point. It's silly getting into some nitpicking dispute over the difference between "hiding" and "collapsing" which only distracts from finding a real solution. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not "nitpicking" or "silly" to insist on a proper use of terms. Rather, it's dishonest to misuse terms in an effort to win an argument. Collapsed =/= hidden. End of story. George Ponderevo (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. Feel free to read that sentence as beginning "What we really want here is a straightforward technical solution which lets editors who dislike infoboxes collapse them globally" if it upsets you so. It doesn't actually change anything in the meaning of the sentence, and I rather think you're imagining motives here if you believe that this was deliberate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course it's deliberate, else Andy Mabbett wouldn't be edit warring over the title of this section, and encouraging others to do so as well. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not Andy Mabbett. Any lack of distinction made in my posts between "hiding" and "collapsing" is mine and mine alone. My personal opinion that the difference is academic. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

And my opinion is that it isn't, and the the word "hidden" was deliberately chosen to distort this discussion. Is your opinion in some way worth more than mine? You may if you wish attempt to argue that the contents of the infobox are hidden, but not that the infobox is hidden. George Ponderevo (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Whatever your opinion, the fact is that in the examples given above, the infobox is wrapped in another, collapsed container, which hides the infobox. The collapsed container can be seen, but not the infobox. The only exceptions are those infoboxes which have been moved to the foot of their article; which have not yet been discussed here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Once again, why is my opinion less important than your opinion? And no matter how many times you repeat it, the infox is not hidden, it's collapsed. As I said just above, you may attempt to make an argument that the information contained within the infobox is hidden, but the infobox itself is patently not hidden, else you would be unable to see it to expand it. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion is less important than the facts. The fact is that no-one can see the infoboxes, because they are hidden inside collapsed wrappers. The wrappers can be seen and, once expanded, no longer hide the infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

As I've noted above, a simple CSS fix will do that for anyone who doesn't want to see infoboxes; I'm sure there are editors willing to help anyone who lacks the necessary know-how to apply it for themselves. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Your CSS kludge is unsatisfactory because it wouldn't allow the option of seeing the infobox, which is the point of collapsing it, not hiding it as you are proposing. George Ponderevo (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I really think Andy should stay out of this now [1] and is incapable of replying to reasoned argument.  Giano  17:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I have made a js solution, see #Collapsing most infoboxes using javascript. Frietjes (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• I parked the comment I was about to make in my temp file for 24 hours as I have no desire to be immoderate or to be savaged, I wish to diffuse this time wasting argument. Every warning bell rings and would advise every editor to steer clear, but as Wikipedia has a propensity to equate "he who shouteth loudest" with consensus, I will state my point of view. To many readers the Infobox is all that is important. Wikipedia is about delivering content to readers- not and never about rendering the page to match the settings of a preferred browser. The reader has a perfect right to decide which infomation he wishes his browser to display but that is his and his browsers personal issue. While this is going on there are GAs waiting to written- can we please direct all this surplus energy there.--ClemRutter (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that although infoboxes aren't explicitly named at MOS:COLLAPSE, that they are covered by it, as it's not for navigational purposes and the stuff being collapsed isn't always covered in the main text. Consequently, I think that infoboxes should not normally be collapsed (with a possible exception for an unusually long list of that fits the "tables that consolidate information covered in the main text" exception to MOS:COLLAPSE). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

What exactly should be in an infobox that should not be in the article?  Giano  20:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

For articles about people and places, which you mostly seem to edit, probably nothing. But look at the infoboxes in Mercury (element) and Influenza: almost none of that (and certainly none of the external links to databases) belongs in the body of the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Please read the thread. You are repeating my point.  Giano  08:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The appalling Template:Infobox World Heritage Site is notable for containing mostly repetitive information on the UNESCO bureaucratic procedures around awarding the status that certainly don't belong in the text of the article, and are very easily found in the relevant UNESCO page, which is always linked. This infobox is also remarkable for not containing most of the information a reader would actually want, such as the date, style and culture of monuments. Unfortunately it is very widely used. See Khajuraho Group of Monuments for an example. Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

That is indeed a poor infobox; and I have previously supported your attempts to have it improved. However. none of the infoboxes on the articles under discussion use it, and one bad example is not a reason to dismiss all the good ones. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Nor would I suggest doing so, but it is a good example to answer the question that had been asked just above. Johnbod (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Someone else needs to undo Giano's dicking about with the subject of this section, which is misleading, mis-spelt, and breaks inbound links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Infobox usage or non-usage, should be decided per article. GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Collapsing most infoboxes using javascript

If anyone is interested, I wrote a javascript script that collapses most infoboxes by default (see User:Frietjes/collapse infoboxes.js), you can use it by adding the following line to your Special:MyPage/skin.js file

importScript('User:Frietjes/collapse infoboxes.js'); // [[User:Frietjes/collapse infoboxes.js]]

the code is basically the section for collapsing navboxes from MediaWiki:Common.js, but with two modifications (1) it adds it to the "infobox" class, rather than the "collapsible" class, and (2) it adds it to caption or the top row, depending on if the infobox has a caption. so far it seems to work with most infoboxes, but there probably are some exceptions. let me know if you find any problems or bugs. Frietjes (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Could we turn that on its head, and have a script for those who don't like collapsed infoxes to see the uncollapsed version by default? George Ponderevo (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

That's already the default across about 99.9999% of articles with infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

If that were true then you would not have brought your crusade here, and there would have been no point in Frietjes wasting time on her proposed compromise. I know from previous experience that asking you questions is a fruitless exercise, as you never answer them, but how many infoboxes would you estimate have the option of collapsing them? George Ponderevo (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK, none; hence my comment above, which you wrongly - as any fool can tell - suggest is false. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Right, so clearly your statement above is at best misleading, if not downright false. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

My statement, as any fool can tell, is clear and correct. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

So, earlier today I was just "silly", but now I'm a "fool". I see. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggested closing

• This discussion is going nowhere. Andy Mabbit has now been banned twice, for a total of God knows how many years, because of his extremely zealous attachment to this subject. Nothing is going to come from further debate; I suggest we all stop engaging and leave the status quo as it is - which when all said and done works pretty well until Mabbit comes along and causes dissent. To summarise: most people agree that on scientific and statistical pages a fully displayed info-box can be useful; on pages concerned with history and the arts they are less useful. On such pages, if the principal editors feel an infobox is unnecesary, then leave it out; if they are divided then give the page a collapsed box and if they want an info box - then have an infobox. We don't all have to live by regimented, uniform rules.  Giano  22:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Editors agreeing sign below:

• Agree. I haven't been following the discussion, but I certainly agree with the passage "To summarise: most people agree that on scientific and statistical pages a fully displayed info-box can be useful; on pages concerned with history and the arts they are less useful." That's exactly the position stated again and again by the various mainline music projects. --Kleinzach 10:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC) P.S. 'Collapsing' boxes would be a useful option. In the past it wasn't available, hence we don't know how often it might be used. 'Collapsing' info (e.g. navigation boxes) is well-established as a publishing device on WP. P.P.S. Re the infobox problem see Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes. --Kleinzach 02:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
• Agree. I think Giano's right. Here's a pretty good example of an ugly discussion.[2]. Dunno whether the author is still editing but haven't seen her around much since then. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  I looked at the discussion, not seeing ugliness. - Ugly or not, the question is not what you perceived how in the past, but if hidden or collapsed infoboxes are acceptable, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Agree. Similar discussions to the one that Truthkeeper links to have played out over and over for some years now, and one thing from that specific discussion stands out: "In a compromise there is usually ground given by both sides in order to reach an agreement; not so much here .... When content creators cannot make their opinion known without being called 'blind' and 'obstinate', or accused of 'retarding article development', what point is there?" and as infoboxes get longer and longer and consequently more and more intrusive these arguments will only increase. "I don't like it" and "We've always done it this way" are not valid arguments against what seems to be to be the best compromise we're able to come up with now given the current state of the Mediawiki software and the resistance to any changes whatsoever. George Ponderevo (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
• Agree. Why normal people still have to point out the obv to the lunatic and paracetic likes of Andy Mabbit in 2013 is a sad indication of where the project is going. So much for the goal of editor retention, or do not feed the trolls. Oh wait, I forgot, he's connected to WMUK. Ceoil (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
• Agree minus the personalized spin, & somewhat minus the bit on what types of article they suit, which isn't needed. But yes, leave it as an option that's useful in some cases. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  In my experience it is very much about personalities, and the zealot approach of the likes of Mabbet and Jack, both of whom are known to focus and target certain editors across a wide variety of their articles after being stood up to. And they goad and bait, and a simple google search will tell you why. TK's link above is the tip of the iceberg. Ceoil (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Agree. Collapsing is an option that could often work as a compromise. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
• Agree - In some articles infoboxes don't work, aren't necessary and are overloaded with trivial information, and in some articles they do work; they are optional, as is collapsing an optional choice...Modernist (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
• Agree per User:Kleinzach.--Smerus (talk) 10:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• Cautiously agree with the gist of the infobox aspect of the statement. Partial or even complete collapse can be useful compromise on some occasions. I notice that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts states:

  "There may be a conflict for space between the need to illustrate visual arts articles and the use of infoboxes. This is decided on a case-by-case basis." [3].

  Likewise, WikiProject Architecture states re infoboxes:

  "this is not compulsory - often architecture articles are better first illustrated by other means" [4].

  The images (and their correct placement) are integral to the educational value of these types of articles and sometimes worth not only a thousand words but also a thousand bullet-points on an infobox. Voceditenore (talk) 10:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Editors disagreeing sign below:

• I haven't seen any evidence at all that the community supports collapsed infoboxes, regardless of the state of consensus (for, against, or non-existent) at the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
• I don't like hiding and collapsing. I am an editor who wants open infoboxes, but I don't even get them for my "own" articles, see Peter Planyavsky. Compare the open one suggested on the talk to the collapsed one now in the article, read the discussion, calculate the waste of time of several people. The above discussion showed how people who don't like infoboxes can achieve not to see them. Let's keep it simple, infobox yes or no, without hiding and collapsing, which requires a different style of coding. I believe that it is better for the readers, who are (or should be) more important than the authors, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
• I don't think the summary is accurate with regard to collapsing infoboxes. 16:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkonrad (talk • contribs)
• Getting tired of personal preferences over user accessibility. Time the community steps in and makes user accessibility the primary concern.Moxy (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
• If we are going to give extra weight to principal authors, then why is Gerda's preference at Peter Planyavsky ignored? - check here. I don't think it's fair to give extra weight only to those principal authors who are against infoboxes. --RexxS (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

This has seldom, if ever, happened in my seven-odd years experience of this problem. Given WP:OWN — repeatedly invoked by those who think WP should be uniform — principal authors have rarely identified themselves as such. --Kleinzach 02:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

You haven't been following this debate then, have you? --RexxS (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

We're talking about articles. Kleinzach 15:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think infoboxes are a valuable tool and particularly for human biographies. Infobox person is standard in most areas, why should this be any different? I suppose a collapsable option is better than nothing, but it's almost nothing, IMHO. I say fix infobox syntax to address other issues. Montanabw^(talk) 01:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Editors commenting sign below:

• Comment – I would agree to the above statement if personal references were removed. Boghog (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Well I'm afraid that's not possible. For years now. Andy Mabbit has been wandering onto pages (where he's never been seen before) and causing trouble over info-boxes. This has led to him being banned twice for a year [5] and blocked even more times; and I, for one, am sick of it. So let's have an end to it. No one wants to abolish info-boxes, just accept that they are not right for every single page.  Giano  10:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• You are combining two issues that really need to be separated. The first is whether there are instances where collapsing infoboxes is appropriate. In general, I think infoboxes should not be collapsed but may be appropriate in rare situations where consensus otherwise cannot be reached. The second is alleged misdeeds by an editor and this is the wrong forum to bring up this issue. I cannot support any statement that contains personal attacks. Boghog (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The truth cannot be a personal attack. Secondly, this is exactly the correct forum.  Giano  13:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Define truth. "Mabbit comes along and causes dissent" seems not to be true for his factual question initiating this discussion: should hidden/collapsed infoboxes be acceptable. - That people disagree on the answer is not dissent "caused" by Andy. My answer is above: better not accept hiding and collapsing, be open, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

It's been going on for years Gerda, I suggest you start on this link [6]. Nothing fruitful can come of this debate while Andy Mabbit is allowed to take part. Personally, I don't think the community will ever unite behind one blanket policy for or against an infobox; so we might just as well leave things as they are, which works fairly well until Mabbit arrives on the scene.  Giano  14:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you will be disappointed but I am not interested the slightest little bit in that past. I raised the flag for "Letting go of the past" on my talk for reasons. - During my time (starting 2009), I observed Andy and (later) Br'er trying to add an infobox to George Solti (an article that had an infobox until 2007). The timing was bad, but the language polite and convincing (to me). I don't see what you see. Lets look at the facts at hand.

ps: Giano, I admire the construction "Mabbit", even better than Br'er Rabbi ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Honestly, I don't care about pages I have nothing to do with. I mainly care about pages relating to transportation (bridges, tunnels, roads, trains, etc.). Those can use infoboxes pretty nicely, as they deal with flat facts: dates, dimensions, who, what, when, where. There's not much dissension there. - Denimadept (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I completely agree with you. The motion does too: "scientific and statistical pages a fully displayed info-box can be useful."  Giano  10:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I will not agree or disagree with the Suggested closing statement. My reasons are: first, I have no personal knowledge of Editor Andy Mabbett's alleged wrongdoing; second: I do not accept the assertion that nothing will result from further discussion – if we do not talk with those with whom we disagree, then surely nothing will happen. —Trappist the monk (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Trappist the monk: There are archives and archives and archives of past discussions on this subject. Just take one individual project like Composers, and see [[7]]. After reading the discussions for a few hours, it's possible that you may change your mind! These debates have been damaging to encyclopaedia building: most (Composers Project) contributing editors simply got fed up, gave up and left. Kleinzach 15:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

It is the oddest thing that some projects like (Composers Project) dont let there own editors develop articles as they wish - its a big reason people leave the project(s) or dont join in the first place. Editors join projects to help not to be told what they can and cant do when they in good faith develop articles. Most large topic projects have a collaborative feel to them - not a dictatorial feel. Moxy (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Moxy, I note you have few enough edits in this area, this "oddest thing", do you know the background and the farce that lead to it at all? Ceoil (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

You are correct I do not remove or place infoboxs in articles. However my experience with this topic is vast and long standing - in fact never seen you before at any debate on the topic. I have spend countless hours explaining the situation to the poor editors that encounter hostility when editing pages related to the aforementioned projects.Moxy (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)]

How very self-satified and at the same time obtuse. You know a lot about boxes but not so much about specific content or the context where they are slapped. And hoitly dismiss incumbants; look where you are now....using smug phrasing like "aforementioned". Ceoil (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

This is the type of problem I have to deal when our new editors run into this problem topic. Please explain to me and all the others here why your insulting me. One would think that by now you should have a clear understanding of what our basic conduct expectations are here.Moxy (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Really? so we can discuss Ceoil's history, but not Andy Mabbit's? The truth of the matter here is that the infobox crew lead by Andy Mabbit have been bullying editors for years. Well now it's going to stop. People are sick of being pushed about on this subject. I had never heard of Mabbit until he arrived on a page I edited and presumed to call the shots; now we shall sort this matter - fairly.  Giano  20:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Well said Giano. Lets remember who are the antagonists here, that literally go looking for a fight. Moxy, a cheap deflectionm like that...ho hum. You are a disgrace to your species, whatever it is. Ceoil (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Ceoil could pls try to stay level headed and communicate on a mature level. To Giano - Never said anything about Andy Mabbit's - if you guy want talk about him do so. What I am talking about is the isolation of the projects because of this long standing debate. I am sure you concur its a problem right? The projects do great work, but this one problem has caused so much torment for all, that one would think all would be working towards a solution - not blaming or insulting individual people . Moxy (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Moxy, your the one raising strawmen, and Ive already made the point that you dimissed the entire classical music community in an offhand way, with out adressing my inquiry as to if you knew the background. Ceoil (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I though I was clear on the matter - I have vast knowledge of the problem at hand and its background and have been involved in the debates since 2006. Would be best to try and address the concerns raised over what you believe peoples intentions are. If you interpreted my concerns raised as a dismissal of the project - your wrong - and furthermore was not my intent - in fact I stated how great there work is. Perhaps you could voice your opinion at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject desk/Interviews2 Moxy (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Reading someone else's discussions with Editor Andy Mabbett doesn't constitute personal knowledge on my part since I was not a participant in those discussions. Even were I to read those discussions, past, present, future behavior of an editor isn't germane to the issue at hand. We are here to discuss hiding / collapsing infoboxes.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

ArbBreak A

• Comment - The wording of the closing statement is so flawed to render it useless. Firstly personal comments must be removed. That leaves us with the assertion that: To summarise: most people agree that on scientific and statistical pages a fully displayed info-box can be useful; on pages concerned with history and the arts they are less useful. This is a POV not supported by research.

Then follows the proposal: On such pages, if the principal editors feel an infobox is unnecesary, then leave it out; if they are divided then give the page a collapsed box and if they want an info box - then have an infobox. This does not allow comment on the status quo : wherever possible an article should have a visible infobox, or the contrary option of wherever editors are divided the default is to provide a visible infobox.--ClemRutter (talk) 03:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Let me see if I've understood. Whenever editors are divided on the utility of an infobox then the default is to provide a visible infobox? The same as if they weren't divided? What's the point in anyone ever disagreeing then? George Ponderevo (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

If the disagreement hinges on the general merits of the infobox system, as it usually does, then local disagreement does not override wider consensus. Exactly the same thing would apply if a plurality of editors developing a particular article decided amongst themselves that the article text should be in pink Comic Sans. That a small core of editors affiliated with particular WikiProjects (mostly classical music and opera, along with stately homes; I feel that defining this as "history and the arts" overreaches somewhat) feel very strongly about pink Comic Sans has led to quite a bit of drama, but it's an an abberation rather than a settled point of consensus. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

False premise, false premise. As an editor who has both created infoboxes (mainly for buildings), and argued for removing them (mainly from biographies), I've never seen the "general merits of the infobox system" as the subject of any discussion I've participated in. --Kleinzach 16:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

"I don't think this article should have an infobox because I don't think any articles [outwith exception X] should have infoboxes" is so common a statement in these discussions that I find it difficult to believe you've never encountered it. There's a whole subgenre of essays devoted to it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we've been reading different Wikipedias? On the one I've been following, objections to particular infoboxes (not infoboxes in general) have been specific to particular articles, e.g. concerns about anachronistic information etc. Almost all the reservations about the use of the boxes have come from actively contributing editors working in their special areas of interest. --Kleinzach 15:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Because I have made several posts in this topic and because the edit summary for this edit says reply to Trappist the monk and because I have not posted in this particular thread which begins with a comment by Editor ClemRutter, I am confused about which particular post of mine to which you are replying. {{clarification needed}}.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Autocue mistake. I wrote 'reply' in the edit summary and it added "to Trappist the monk" as I sent it. Sorry. --Kleinzach 00:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand the "an infobox is not suitable for this particular article" discussion from Joseph Priestley: the man simply did too much in his life to be summed up in a table, so far as anyone has tried so far (although attempting to improve {{infobox person}} to be suitable for such has been a pet project of mine). But asserting that e.g. the composers kerfuffle is about some uniqueness about classical composers that the community at large agrees does not suit an infobox is, well, cherrypicking to be extremely charitable. A large number of parties involved in that discussion have views regarding the general deployment of infoboxes which differ strongly from that of the community as a whole, and that's coloured the debate to a great extent. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a sweeping and unfair misrepresentation of the debates at the music projects. Surely you can recognise that there are whole groups of articles like your example Joseph Priestley? Indeed there are many much trickier subjects to handle, biographies of individuals whose basic information — names, dates, nationalities etc — are disputed or not known. No one ever said that classical composers were unique and different from other historic figures. Indeed the problems of boxing a Venetian painter or architect of the 17th century would be exactly the same as a composer of the same background. --Kleinzach 16:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's productive to continue this sub-thread. Suffice to say that I disagree that an alleged correlation between editors disagreeing with infoboxes in general and editors disagreeing with infoboxes in those particular disputed territories is a "sweeping generalisation", and that I likewise disagree with the (presumably deliberately sweeping) statement that nobody has ever ascribed a unique unsuitableness to infoboxes for composers / operas / what have you. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Show me exactly where a contributor to the music projects has "ascribed a unique unsuitableness to infoboxes for composers" — or kindly have the good sense to withdraw what you have been saying. --Kleinzach 17:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I see the argument that it is impossible to create an adequate infobox for composers given repeatedly in the original RfC. It's truly beyond me what you think I'm arguing about if you don't agree with that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward): "The argument that it is impossible to create an adequate infobox for composers" (which has been made) is altogether different from the claim that editors have "ascribed a unique unsuitableness to infoboxes for composers". I have a pretty low opinion of this kind of shifty dissembling. Can you step up, and tell us where someone talked about this so called " unique unsuitableness"? Either that, or have the decency and honesty to withdraw and apologise for misinforming people. --Kleinzach 09:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting sick and fed up of folk inventing semantic differences between nearly-identical phrases, parsing them to Hell and back and then insisting that the result is the opposition trying to be deceitful. If you think the word "unique" alters that clause in a way which makes it have a significantly different meaning then explain what that difference is and I'll see what I can do about it. And preferably do it without demanding retractions in advance, and with a little less use of the royal we. Sigh. Better yet, take this to my talk, or even better than that just drop it and read the sentence without whatever heinous motives you imagine the word "unique" adds to it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a major difference between suggesting that composers are uniquely unsuited to infobox treatment, and the position held by many contributors that biographical infoboxes are problematic. That will be obvious to everybody whatever view they take on this. Sad that Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) can't bring himself to admit this. Anyway it should now be a matter of record that no-one ever said composers were unique. --Kleinzach 10:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you're getting at with the "unique" thing now. What would have been more accurate for me to state is that "the composers project is unique in that the consensus amongst its members is that biographical infoboxes are problematic". There are those who believe that biographical infoboxes are problematic outwith the realm of classical music, but that is not a consensus position. So apologies for my logical fault. Imagine the drama that could have been saved here if only I'd used a Venn diagram. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we should move this section to a different location, because the original question - whether collapsed infoboxes are acceptable - seems not relevant. I just performed a little exercise: looked at the biographies of Today's featured articles - the best Wikipedia has to offer - for the last three months: all but one come with an infobox, that is what readers are used to see. The exception is Cosima Wagner who is not even known to be a composer. If other projects can cope with creating an "adequate" infobox for complex personalities, I don't see why classical music should not be able, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Have you seen the example of Queen Elizabeth II (which is an FA), where the infobox is partially collapsed? Whatever anyone says, collapsing the infobox either in whole or in part is the only compromise we can possibly reach given the current state of the Wikimedia software. The accessibility issue Moxy raises is a general issue with all of Wikipedia's content, not specifically related to collapsed infoboxes. The problem here is that there are too few willing to compromise, simple as that. George Ponderevo (talk) 13:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, this is one area in which we're ~all agreed. Even Andy has been involved in the development of optional collapsibility of long lists of data in infoboxes. Indeed, I'd say that this particular type of collapsing content is already broadly accepted. But it's quite a different kettle of fish to the more far-reaching proposals. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Is it? Seems to be a perfectly logical extension of it to me. Whatever arguments have been put forward against collapsed infoboxes apply equally to partially collapsed infoboxes, specifically that information is hidden and the introduction of accessibility issues. George Ponderevo (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I came to ask you, George, to build an infobox for Cosima after the model of Elizabeth, which looks great. - (after reading the last comments) It seems too logical to conclude that it is perfect to hide ALL info and make the user click one more time if he wants to see something. But - as said above - I prefer all collapsed to non at all, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

We can only move forward Gerda if we're all prepared to give a little, just a little. Those who don't want infoboxes have offered a compromise by collapsing them, but those who demand infoboxes, at least in part because of an ill-considered linkage between them and metadata, refuse to budge. So the stalemate will continue. I haven't looked at the Cosima article or at the infobox it uses, but maybe Freitjes would be your best bet if she's not too busy. Failing that I'd be more than happy to take a look and see what I can come up with. George Ponderevo (talk) 14:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

What do you ask me to give more? I conceded to have them collapsed in exceptional cases, no? - Cosima has no infobox, as stated above, the one TFA biography since 1 December without one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to give more Gerda, I was making a general point. George Ponderevo (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not a stalemate. A handful of editors want to change the way something works across over a million articles (i.e. they want to start hiding infoboxes); they have demonstrated no consensus for that change. The status quo thus pertains. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Have you considered the possibility that that "handful of editors" may be right and that you may be wrong? "Nothing will ever be achieved if first all objections must be overcome." George Ponderevo (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, many times. But their arguments have always been utterly unconvincing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Well tough luck Pigsonthewing because this 'handful of editors' won't be pushed around by you - now or ever. You personally are the biggest obstacle to any step forward and have been since 2008. You personally, with your obsession for uniformity and control over others, are responsible for all the divisiveness on this subject. A compromise and solution would have been found years ago without you, your arrogance and intransigence. You have a great deal to answer for. I wonder how many editors have left because of you?  Giano  17:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

(outdenting a bit) Andy, if there is such an overwhelming consensus that infoboxes should never be totally or even partially collapsed, why did you start this discussion to ask if this were acceptable, and advertise it at the Village Pump, no less. It turns out that the majority of the editors commenting here seem to feel that at least some degree of collapsing is acceptable/desirable and in fact has been going on for years, and quite a few of those think that while total collapsing is not great, it's a possibly acceptable compromise in some circumstances. Now you say that none of this matters because you interpret the view of the 1000s of editors who have not commented here as all agreeing with you? Voceditenore (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Quite right! and what's more, Pigsonthewing, from what I can see there's only a handful of people, led by you who could care a damm about info boxes anyway, and they too seem mostly prepared to compromise. The only difference is, while most of us have been adding content, you, Pigsonthewing, have been obsessing over info-boxes and adding them where ever you felt inclined to stick your nose in. Get a new interest - or several, and let the rest of us get on with writing.  Giano  19:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That last comment was not helpful and extreme personal views should be expressed off-wiki, consider what you are saying on how it will be received. If fact it really does invalidate your previous posts. You say yourself that you are not overly concerned with infoboxes and prefer just to provide content- it is irritating in the extreme when years of previous research and understanding of the global intricacies of metadata and infoboxes is dismissed as an obsession, and logic refuted by a personal slight. I think you had made your point a few days ago, and it is now time to investigate ways of improving the attributes of an infobox that are irritating. But please keep this thread clean of remarks we all regret.--ClemRutter (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

No, many people are sick of being pushed about by half a dozen of you obsessing with infoboxes and making wild claims about metadata. You've been offered a good compromise take it or leave it. Either way, do Wikipedia a favour and stop boring the rest of is to tears and driving off editors and wrecking the appearance of pages to which you have contributed nothing. Take the compromise while it's on the table. How dare you presume to tell every editor what they should and should no be doing. You've lot have pushed and bullied for long enough - now shut up and listen and for once in your lives learn!  Giano  21:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

There's a significant difference, both semantically and technically, between collapsing a single list (which is what QE2 and the likes of {{infobox chef}} do) and collapsing multiple table elements. The associated issues with accessibility and information-hiding differ in several ways. This also helps to explain why an editor would support one and oppose the other (and, looking at the project as a whole, why one has resulted in so much more heated discussion than the other). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

There are many reasons why one solution has generated so much more heat than the other, and none of them are technical; they're deeply rooted in Wikipedia's fundamental ossificatiion. George Ponderevo (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a bit (okay, a lot) of both. Exactly how much of each varies for each contributor. You've correctly identified that practical way forward here is to concentrate on the technical rather than the political. To that extent, we've already established that there is common ground in at least one area of the discussion on collapsing, which is that of collapsing long list elements. Whether that helps us much (considering it's already in place in many of the areas that it's useful) is unfortunately less clear. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if it might be possible to agree on a minimum set of data an infobox ought usefully to display (obviously on a case by case basis), and collapse the rest? For historic sites, for instance, the listing number might be useful to show, as I've never seen that included in the article text. Images are another issue of course, because including them an infobox imposes pretty severe size restrictions. If there was a real will to do it I'm quite certain we could come up with something that would satisfy the overwhelming majority of editors and readers, but I'm very doubtful there is any such will. George Ponderevo (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Ideally infoboxes should only show "vital statistics" anyway: they should not contain trivia. Where we collapse material, it is because it is important detail that nonetheless consumes an excessive amount of space if uncollapsed. Nor should infoboxes contain unique material: they are at-a-glance summaries of important article material. That we neglect to include some notable reference data in article bodies in some domains is an oversight. Additionally, I'm confused by the assertion regarding images: the prevalent image format for infoboxes defaults to presenting the image at the reader's thumbnail size, but almost always allows for this to be overridden should a larger image be desired. As regards "satify[ing] the overwhelming majority of editors and readers", I assert that this is already pretty much where we're at; making infoboxes less irritating for readers and editors who disagree with them will incrementally increase that majority. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's a million miles from where we are now, due in no small part to this linking of infoboxes with metadata. And as metadata is good, the more we have of it the better surely. As regards images in infoboxes, the penalty paid there is that to increase the image size also blows up the infobox even further; images ought never to have been included in infoboxes, another pretty poor design decision IMO. Until Andy Mabbett remounted his hobby horse there had been no objection to the use of a collapsed infobox in Montacute House, which had been there for some years. Can we therefore assume that 100 per cent of readers and editors were perfectly happy with that approach? George Ponderevo (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes were broadly popular before they were significant emitters of metadata. They remain popular with readers and editors alike who are unfamiliar with the concept of metadata. I've grown to consider metadata a bit of a red herring (both from pro-infobox and anti-infobox proponents, FWIW) when it comes to assessing the consensus for infobox placement. Suffice to say that I don't regard the assertion that infoboxes "satisfy the overwhelming majority of editors and readers" as being "a million miles from where we are now", but I doubt we'll convince each other on that point. Regarding images, we could certainly reword the relevant MoS paragraphs to suggest that lead images above the default thumbnail size be separated from infoboxes if there's consensus that this is the right approach; I don't think that discussion has been had in isolation yet, and heaven knows that this particular RfC already has scope problems. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That the readers of Montacute House accepted what the main authors felt was good is pleasing. - In the case of Peter Planyavsky, the story of reverting and collapsing and at present opening again but with a loss of most of the information (compare to the talk) is less pleasing, at least to me, - not a hobby horse, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

My "hobby horse" comment was targeted at Andy Mabbett, not you. And as it happens I'm probably not much happier with the Peter Planyavsky situation than you are. I think we need to be a lot cleverer about the way that infoboxes are used, not just dig into our trenches and start firing at each other. Whether anyone's listening or not, a significant number of editors object to the presence of infoboxes and have done for years. We need to do something about that, not keep on ignoring it under the ruse of metadata, which as Thumperward suggests has become something of a red herring. Collapsing infoboxes is one solution, but I might well be equally happy with collapsing all but the "essential" information in an infobox. Somehow I doubt we'd be able to agree on what that essential information was though, so until that day comes all we have is the collapsed infobox option. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Andy possibly saddled the horse for me, the main author who added an infobox, was reverted ... - no need to repeat ;) . I'll go now and imitate the royal example, let's see what happens, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I can see there is mileage in looking at what essential information should always be visible, and what could be collapsed within the infobox. So with historic houses, and lets limit it to that, a way forward would be to look at Infobox Historic site and work up some suggestions in a sandbox then start a discussion on that talk page. I have always used Infobox building-- for buildings so we can see there are at least two acceptable approaches. --ClemRutter (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)

That would be worth a try. George Ponderevo (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

At this edit, Editor George Ponderevo addresses the image-size and the infobox at Montacute House. His complaint is that when increasing the size of an image in an infobox, the size of the infobox itself also increases. In this he is correct. However, it seems to me strange that in order to make the collapsed / hidden Quick Reference infobox look nice in the article, the {{infobox}} template that wraps {{Infobox historic site}} is set to the same width as the image and its border (360px). When {{Infobox historic site}} is visible, the Quick Reference maintains its 360px width which puts a 40px blank space on either side of {{Infobox historic site}} so the combined infoboxes are bigger because the image is bigger.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

But you're missing the fundamental difference; the expanded infobox is only revealed when the infobox is uncollapsed and can easily be hidden again. It does not, in other words, distort the default article layout except if you request it to do so. George Ponderevo (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

No, George, you're missing it: Why not have the 350px-wide (or even wider) image at the top of the page, followed by a completely separate, narrower infobox?

What you have now is a 350px-wide box that is hiding a 250px-wide infobox (complete with material, such as the map, that cannot be seen anywhere else in the article). Why not have the infobox be its normal narrow self, rather than wasting an extra 100 pixels when it's opened? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

One of us is certainly missing the point, but here's a clue; it's not me. That the design and implementation of so many infoboxes is pants is all the more reason to try and get this right, not keep pretending that everything in the garden is hunky-dory. George Ponderevo (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

George Ponderevo says "the infobox... can easily be hidden again": Yes, the operative word is hidden. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The operative word in your case is "obsession". I used the word "hidden" because the current implementation of the collapsing templates uses the words "hide" and "show", presumably because they're shorter than the more accurate "collapse" and "un-collapse". George Ponderevo (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that I'm missing any fundamental differences. When the wrapper is as wide as the image, the wrapped infobox is as wide as the image whether it's collapsed or not. That width necessarily has some effect on the how the page is rendered on whatever display you are using at the time.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

ArbBreak B

• Comment - I also fail to see the purpose of the suggested closing from the text. Is it intended to reach agreement that it is - on occasions - acceptable to wrap an infobox in the collapse template to put its contents out of view? And I agree that the personal comments are not acceptable. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the above comment broken at this edit.—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Fundamentally, I think that the whole idea of infoboxes needs to be rethought, as duplicating data is never a good idea, and the text and the infobox are always going to be susceptible to drifting apart. I came across one example just a few minutes ago at Garth Pier. The text says that the optional entry fee is 25p, but the infobox says it's 30p. Which is right? I've got no idea, but what I do know is that expecting editors to update information in two separate places is not a good idea. Maybe in the fullness of time Wikidata will be able to help, but in the meantime we have to do the best we can, which is not to keep tramping down this tired old path of "infoboxes were good enough for my grandad, so they're good enough for me". George Ponderevo (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  The drift between the body and the infobox is not unique. We regularly see drift between the body of an article and the lead. By your logic, we should abolish all the introductions, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  I don't recall suggesting that it was unique, simply that the more data is duplicated the more likely it is that it will drift. And as it appears that your mind is closed to the idea of any possible improvement to the ante-deluvian software that powers this site i really don't see what logic has to do with anything, particularly when misappropriated in such a ridiculous reductio ad absurdum. George Ponderevo (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  Remember (UK readers) that the HofCommons question time Wikiscandal re Titian with Cameron & Gordon Brown & respective party lackeys was all caused by different info in the main text and infobox. And guess which had the correct info? Johnbod (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  Id say now that Mabbet and his ilk could care less about the integrity of actual facts and you know, info and so forth, and god help any lonely incumbant editor that gets in his way (has happened to me several times). Jack and Rexx should hold up their hands here too. Long as the articles emmitting meta data, its all good. SPAs by any other definition. Ceoil (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  Well, as I'm mentioned, I suppose I'd better reply, although I'm sad you think you ever "got in my way". There are two good things that we are trying to achieve here. One is to provide a sort of redundant standardised summary of the key facts for folks like EauOo (talk · contribs) (remember him/her, the online researcher, from Talk:Pilgrim at Tinker Creek #Infobox?). Much of the time those facts can be adequately précised, but sometimes they cannot - in those cases we should realistically work at a granular level to decide what summary facts we can include on a case-by-case basis.

  The other thing is metadata. We want to be a database as well as an encyclopedia; to present facts in a standardised, machine-readable format to make it as easy as possible for re-users to scrape and aggregate those facts in a way that is familiar to them. It is generally considered best to try to make available as many pieces of data as we can for the re-users as we can't know what they will find most relevant. As it happens, most of the facts are the same for both of these two good things. So it makes sense to use a single entity to do both jobs - we call that an infobox. George is quite right about keeping down the number of places that hold the same data because of the problems of updating, but until we move to a model where those data are held in a single database and transcluded into an article in a smart manner, we're stuck with duplicating data in the text and in the summaries (read: lead and then infobox). So I'm generally against separating out the metadata from the infobox because it exacerbates the problem of maintenance at present.

  I suppose that a partial solution to the problems of over-long infoboxes or spurious bits of information might be to have two different sorts of parameter for an infobox: one that provided metadata and displayed it in the infobox; another that provided metadata but did not display it. We could then have lots of local arguments about precisely which data ought to be displayed, but by reducing that to the lowest level, we might find it easier to reach agreement. That wouldn't solve His Excellency's objection to infoboxes in whole classes of articles - and I'll make it clear I respect his right to hold those opinions, even where my opinion differs - but aesthetic arguments always need to be considered and balanced against the convention of a short summary and the desirability of providing metadata. That's a job for an article-by-article discussion, and I'd urge all of the participants to those debates to recognise that other editors involved are humans (except the dinosaurs like me) and deserve consideration as such. If you meet these editors in a pub, you'd buy them a pint (hint) and you'd see that they're decent folks that you can disagree with without going to war. --RexxS (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  "The other thing is metadata. We want to be a database as well as an encyclopedia" - herein lies the problem and puts those who write at odds with those who are interested in being a database. Essentially the writers (such as myself) are now not needed because, well WP is really a database for small handheld devices. And yes, I agree there's no need to go to war, but along the way quite a few hurtful skirmishes have occurred which is the reason I agree with Giano. It's best to just let it be as is. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Let's not forget that all biographical articles already emit the important metadata via the {{persondata}} template, therefore information such as birthdate and so on may often appear four times: in the lead, in the article body, in the infobox, and in the persondata template. That just doesn't make sense, any more than does this old-fashioned fixation with combining metadata and infoboxes. And while I'm sympathetic to any potential problems with collapsed infoboxes, I sometimes have the impression that discussion is analogous to telling a painter that (s)he mustn't use coloured paint, because not everyone can see colours. It's time for a complete rethink, and surely the time is now right with the imminent roll out of phase 2 of the Wikidata project. In the meantime, nobody has put forward even a single convincing argument against the use of collapsed infoboxes in some cases. George Ponderevo (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  I'm sorry that I wasn't clearer. We need to be both an encyclopedia and a database. I write content and I develop technical solutions, so it's not impossible to do both. But I do despair when I get this sort of reply to my sincere request for those who choose to do only one thing or the other not to be so dismissive of the others' contributions. To be frank, TK, I don't think you do yourself any favours by making up straw arguments. Everyone here can see that neither writers (such as myself) nor technicians (such as myself) are "not now needed", just because WP actually has become a database for re-users, as well as a provider of content for small handheld devices, as well as the largest encyclopedia ever written. You need to cut out the hyperbole and try to concentrate on what we have in common. We could all get on so much better. --RexxS (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  Clearly I don't do myself any favors. Never have; never will. Still not a reason to personalize. Bottom line is that I agree with the very specific statement Giano made. End of story and unwatching now. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  RexxS, with all due respect you completly miss the point. And I grant you are not guilty of this, but the problem here is the agressive stance taken by those who out of nowhere seek to plant infoboxes, and if faced with resistance, hound that editor across multiple of thier articles for months. That has happened a lot, you know it I know it. Its unfortunate, but its where the likes of us are coming from. Ceoil (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  @George: actually the amount of data marked up with classes in the {{persondata}} template is slightly less than that in {{infobox person}}, and of course persondata only applies to people - plus you already made the point earlier about duplication of data inevitably leading to loss of synchronisation. You're right, of course, that we need a better technical solution, but there is a value in discussion of the current problems: it gives developers a steer on what sort of solutions are needed and practical. In addition, without a bunch of editors telling them there's a problem to sort out, developers will spend all their time on their own pet projects (trust me, I've been there).

  @Ceoil: Heh, I hope you weren't referring to WP:WADR? No matter either way. Nevertheless I'd welcome a kinder, gentler atmosphere to edit in, where each side took the time to see the other editors point of view. I'm sorry that you've felt hounded across lots of your articles, and I hope you don't think I've been guilty of that. One of the coping strategies I've found helpful for that problem is to stop thinking about articles as my articles - it's much easier when I consider them our articles, and I recommend that strategy to you. --RexxS (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Actually I've been hounded. But please feel free to take a crack at Ezra Pound for instance or maybe Madonna in the Church. Gentler? I suppose so, but posting someone's block log isn't exactly gentle is it? More like using it as a weapon from the way I see it. We'd all like gentler. For sure I would. But you don't have to worry because Ceoil is leaving the project; plenty of others to hound though. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Well, it seems I'd need to read something like 70 books (according to the references) to feel comfortable editing Ezra Pound, and that would have to wait until after June. In the meantime, how about Nitrogen narcosis? I'd be happy to take it to FAC with a co-nominator who was a decent copyeditor (most of the refs are online and only one book needed for background reading). Or perhaps Decompression sickness might take your fancy (similar refs and background reading)? --RexxS (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment Strange - the comment belonged in context further up, - is redaction acceptable? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Not necessary to redact. That particular thread was awful for the poor person who was tending a TFA - hence ugly. Yes, it was ugly because bullying typically is ugly. And yes, I was replying to specific question Giano raised. He's right and I agree with him. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

If someone came and added an open infobox to one of "my" articles, I would say "thank you for your effort", no discussion. - Feel all invited, the lists are on my user and its archives, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this directed specifically at me, or a general comment? If we're to have another day of how unreasonable TK is, (fwiw, I generally think things through with a great amount of detail before I reach a conclusion), then I've had enough. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It is a reply to you calling a discussion "ugly", but the invitation to improve my articles goes to everybody, and I promise a thank-you note for the first 30 to do so. - The first one goes to Nikkimaria who changed Peter Planyavsky to open, however losing much of the content. So you all please mind that in order to see where this whole discussion came from you have to go to the article history, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment - agree with George re rethinking. Fundamentally the problem with infoboxes, particularly in the humanities, is the drift between data there and data in the text; the infobox data is often (mostly) unverified and often subjective; the boxes take up too much real estate, particularly problematic in shorter articles; and images are shrunk - which are often very nice images. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

There have been cdiscussions in at least one (non-humanities) project about whether to cite data in infoboxes. The concensus was that if it was stated and cited in the article there was no need to repeat the citation in the infobox. Drift between main text and infobox is no more an issue than drift between main text and lede or from parent and child articles. It happens and when editors notice it they correct it. I dont see "shrunken image" as a valid argument; in general no leading image is larger than 300px and its perfectly possible for infoboxes to accomodate a large leading image, or to follow it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

As Giano states so well above, certain disciplines lend themselves better to infoboxes than others. Some of the infobox fields in the humanities are subjective - whether a given author has been influenced by a body of work or has influenced a body of work needs to be cited but rarely is and those fields are open to a lot of editing. Sure they can be changed but it's one more task for the primary editor to take care of. Re the pics, see up-page the comment about the Ansel Adams image. Will try to link it. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

In cases like that, see what Graeme said about "or to follow it." If the best choice for a lead image isn't suited for display in an infobox, then use the image and put the infobox lower on the page. Although it's not the most common choice, there's no absolute rule against doing that when it would be helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Another comment - on my page I've been asked to stick to the question at hand, collapsible infoboxes, though to be honest that's not the question Giano asks. Still to answer the collapse issue, here are examples of what I see on Peter Planyavsky:

• 
  This is how one version of "collapsed" infobox renders when opened
• 
  This is how another version of the "collapsed" infobox renders when opened
• 
  This is how the "collapsed" infobox renders when closed

I'll let you all get on with this now. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

seems like a problem with mixing the div container with the table generated by the infobox. is this version better? of course, the real solution is to integrate the collapsing with the infobox directly, to either collapsed the information below the image, or to generate the collapsing wrapper (if this sort of thing is desired at all). but, having some idea of issues related to the various solutions is good for moving forward. Frietjes (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Collapsible Infobox

Montacute House
Montacute House, the entrance facade
Location	Montacute, Somerset
Built	c. 1598
Built for	Edward Phelips
Architectural style(s)	Elizabethan
Owner	National Trust
Listed Building – Grade I
Designated	19 April 1961
Reference no.	434945
Scheduled monument
Reference no.	Somerset County No 187

This infobox – content taken from Montacute House – uses {{Infobox historic site/sandbox}}. This was accomplished by the simple addition of {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} templates. Yeah, it isn't perfect but it illustrates what might be done if someone who is a better template programmer than I am might do. It puts the collapse where it belongs and avoids the duct-tape solution that Montacute House and others now use.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is a problem with collapsed / hidden infoboxes. These citations are inside the infobox at right. If the infobox is in its default (collapsed) state, clicking on the caret (^) in either of the citations will not take you to the place in the article text where the citation is referenced (inside the collapsed infobox). If the infobox is expanded, then clicking on the caret will take you to the citation reference location.

The mechanism used to hide / collapse the infobox doesn't seem to matter – try this same test at Montacute House §References (citations 1 and 2^a).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

This is prettier, I think, but it's still an accessibility problem for some people with repetitive stress injuries and for anyone whose (usually older) computer system can't cope with hidden text. There's a reason that we normally discourage collapsed content, and that reason is that some users cannot use the [show] link to see the hidden material. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Which computer systems can't cope with hidden text? This seems an odd argument given that hidden text is used so widely on WP. Have we suddenly discovered this problem? Kleinzach 03:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, if by "suddenly" you mean something like "back in 2009". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This is an old time problem - We have to many editors more worried about how a page looks over user accessibility and/or simply not aware of accessibility concerns. Not all of us use a mouse - See Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility/What is accessibility? Moxy (talk) 04:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't use a mouse and I don't seem to have any problems. What has "What is accessibility?" got to do with this? Kleinzach 07:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

How do you move your pointer over the "show" tabs then? - I use the tab bottom then have to press enter - this could be a 10 step process (having to press tab over and over to get to the show tab). Accessibility is the whole point of WhatamIdoing rebuttal here in this section - so yes its relevant.Moxy (talk) 07:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Collapsibility is covered by the MOS. See MOS:COLLAPSE. If anyone now thinks it shouldn't be used in WP, please take that to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Kleinzach 09:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

This is the centralized place chosen to talk about this (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Hidden infoboxes). So back to the topic... how do you move/select the show tab? Moxy (talk) 09:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we should all go see MOS:COLLAPSE. That would be the guideline that prohibits people from collapsing images like the map currently being hidden in the collapsed Montacute House infobox. MOS:COLLAPSE permits collapsing in exactly these two situations:

1. Collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text, and
2. in navboxes.

Collapsing whole tables (and an infobox is fundamentally a table) is not permitted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Clearly infoboxes do consolidate main text information, so leaving aside the haggle over the completeness or otherwise of the 'table' (and arguably it wouldn't be complete otherwise the whole thing would be invisible) the spirit of the MOS text, "Collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text.", is that hiding the information is OK. Given the way collapsed text is used in WP, the MOS could hardly point us in a different direction. --Kleinzach 09:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that hiding some information in an infobox would comply with MOS:COLLAPSE, but hiding all of the information in an infobox does not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hiding all of the information would make the whole infobox invisible, so I don't think anyone is suggesting that. --Kleinzach 03:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Except that's what's happened at Montacute House. If you can't, or don't, click the [show] link, then you can see precisely none of {{Infobox Historic Site}}, because 100% of {{Infobox Historic Site}} has been hidden inside the collapsed {{Infobox}} wrapper. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

An infobox may currently be implemented as a table, but that's a whole different kettle of fish; it's not defined as a table. So many people seem to find it difficult to separate logical from physical design. There are many potential physical design solutions, of which tables is just one. Let's focus on what it is that infoboxes are supposed to do, and how best they might do that, not on how they're currently implemented and extrapolating restrictions based on that implementation. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Here you go: "I hereby define an infobox as a table". Meanwhile, infoboxes are supposed to provide readers with a quick, easy to find summary of key facts about an article subject in a standardised and mobile-friendly format and predictable location. Hiding them in the fashion under discussion, or moving them to the foot of the article, denies our readers this useful service. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't matter how many times you say it, a collapsed infobox is not hidden. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, if you want to be pedantic: "the infobox" is not hidden. However, "the information inside the infobox" definitely is hidden, and it's not acceptable under MOS:COLLAPSE for 100% of the information inside a table to be hidden from view. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The entire infobox is hidden, by a wrapping container, as I have explained above. Further, the MoS is supposed to be descriptive, not proscriptive. The situation that currently exists, which it should describe, is that infoboxes are not collapsed on all but ~3 of the one million plus articles that use them. There being no clear consensus to deviate from that norm, that status quo should apply. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

So now the appeal to the MoS for support has failed you're falling back on the old status quo argument? We'd all still be eating rusks if that was the way things really worked. And once again you're repeating the terminological inexactitude that the infbox is being hidden when it's actually being collapsed. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing. The purpose of the infobox is to summarise information that's already in the article, therefore the information contained in the infobox is not being hidden, and is thus perfectly compatible with MOS:COLLAPSE. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

if you want a personal javascript solution to uncollapse all collapsed content for you, I'm sure that is possible. Frietjes (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Editor Frietjes gets all teh internets for the fix to {{Infobox historic site/sandbox}}.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Frietjes has been doing very nice work and I've meant to stop by her page to thank her. But gotta say Trappist, that post above of yours make me wonder - a lot. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The original and (I think first) collapsed infobox was a compromise between Rod and me at Montacute House (I think Wetman actually invented it, but I may be wrong). It worked well for years without any negative comment or trouble, until PigsontheWing spotted it last month. As a compromise, I think it's second to none. The form above looks OK to me. The precise info and its form that goes in it can be another debate.  Giano  10:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

As I pointed out earlier- it looks fine to you, without disabilities, on your browser. Now, access it on a Android phone and the data is truncated on the left. These issues are far more complicated than they first seem. Moxy speaks for users who have motor impairment and key-clicks are too difficult. Wikipedia is far bigger than most of us ever imagined it would become. We must guard against just thinking in our original comfort zone.--ClemRutter (talk) 11:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, at the risk of sounding ruthless and cruel, one has to be in someone's comfort zone - so it may as well be that of the majority. Secondly, we cannot keep changing Wikipedia every time a new type of phone is invented - if I look at Wikipedia on my phone (which I often do) I accept it's going to be a less easy experience than on my laptop, iPad or desktop. Thirdly, as an educational project; it's not unreasonable to assume that Wikipedia needs to be slanted towards conventional computer screens. It would be wonderful to live in a beautiful world that is able to cater for every type of person and screen, but unfortunately we don't.  Giano  14:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not an avid Smartphone user- but I have bought one and a tablet to try and understand the world from the kids and journalists POV. There were the days one was not allowed to take a calculator into a school physics exam- I think even slide rules were banned, things did change. Watching how young graduates use their smartphones for everything- I suspect that while real computers are used by us for editing- the day is near where most access will be from Android and iphones.

QRpedia shows how the phones that kids are carrying can be used in the museum setting. Were I to be curating LMH I would be looking to have QR access on my artifacts, the links give a greater depth of access. The problems with a secondary school visit to a national treasure is that half the class is frustrated with not getting satisfactory answers to questions generated by the artifact, and the others are bored 'when do we get to have our sandwiches'. Using QR allows alternate trails to be set to match age, abilities, learning styles and interests. All kids in UK have access to Android- even the 'leave your phone here before entering the class' just generated a market in 'sacrifice phones' so each kid had an extra one they could hand in. As a Education Officer, I could afford a class set of Android tablets at 85 quid each and preset the apps to point at Wikipedia: they could be issued when needed.

Conversely, the teaching material could be set up to allow a virtual visit for the kids that cannot stump up the bus fare, or to share that material later on their phones with their mates hanging around outside the corner shop. Educational outreach is real inclusion.

If we start being introspective, the responsibility we bear as Wikipedians is awesome. I know that if an MP askes his researcher to brief him on a particular topic- it is what you and I wrote on the topic that will be his first point of call. Policy is made on the back of what we write. If the MP is on the train- he will be picking up his email on the iphone, and linking into WP. Just watch them commute. So you can see where I am coming from in this debate- and the frustration I feel that it is happening at all. It can be a wonderful world it may just be personally uncomfortable achieving those goals.--ClemRutter (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

From what you are saying: Perhaps we had better do away with info boxes completely then, and encourage children and MPs to read the whole facts, not an abbreviated and often misleading and over-simplified form in a little box, by insisting on properly and comprehensive lead sections. For those that find the whole thing to baffling, there's always the simple English version. If I can successfully use a smart phone to access Wikipedia, I'm damn sure a ten-year-old can, although of course looking at the state of the country, that may be more of a challenge for an MP.  Giano  08:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of expanding yet another side-issue, it's a pity that those who know little about a subject are unable to resist pontificating about it. Mobile use of Wikipedia is not a minority issue, and certainly not just for "children", but a key point of access for many; and growing. It is indeed unreasonable - not to say ignorant - to assume that Wikipedia needs to be slanted towards conventional computer screens. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be changing track Pigsonthewing, what happend to all the essential metadata. Not doing too well are you. it looks like you are going to have to accept collapsed boxes or no boxes on pages where a box isn't wanted.  Giano  16:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

That is indeed the only option on the table, at least in the short term until a whole new approach to this problem can be developed and rolled out. In the meantime we can of course fiddle with the details of how best to collapse infoboxes where they would otherwise not be wanted. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Good advice that you might one day consider taking yourself Andy. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding fiddling: I am quite happy with what's at Montacute House now, but the example above seems equally acceptable. Bearing in mind, that I never really waned a box at all, I'm not that pedantic about the exact form; we've all got to compromise a little or we are going to be stuck here for ever.  Giano  16:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

That form was partially adopted at Elizabeth II & is proving to work nicely. I find it quite acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the question isn't "Should it be permissible to collapse one section in an infobox in rare cases, such as that one section being extraordinarily long?" The question is, "Should it be permissible to collapse the entire infobox?" Would you be as satisfied with 100% of the infobox at Elizabeth II being hidden? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Total collapse is unacceptable. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Unacceptable to whom? The discussion here so far has demonstrated that it's clearly not unacceptable to everyone. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't claimed the decision to be entirely up to me. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes you did, or else you forgot to add "unacceptable to me" to your comment. George Ponderevo (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

GoodDay was answering a question I asked for the purpose of clarifying GoodDay's original comment. I don't think that reasonable people had any trouble figuring that out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't you? So now I'm an unreasonable person? Or is that a silly unreasonable person? GoodDay's statement was a clear as day:"Total collapse is unacceptable". Doesn't seem to leave much wiggle room. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I happen to know GoodDay & he merely stated that he was 'an editor' who opposed total collapse of infoboxes. If GoodDay is the only editor to have taken that position, then they (infoboxes) will likely be collapsed. GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

No, he didn't. And what does it matter whether or not you know GoodDay? George Ponderevo (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Um, George, would you look at the sigs here, please? If the person using GoodDay's account doesn't know GoodDay, then either we have a security problem or a case of amnesia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Shall we now get to the heart of the matter?

Anyone who knows anything about GUI design will know that the accordian style is relatively recent. It's not that recent though, and is used on countless web cites, but it post-dates Wikipedia's archaic infoboxes. And anyone who knows anything about Andy Mabbett's history will not find it difficult to put two and two together to see why he's so embattled in defending the status quo. George Ponderevo (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Andy Mabbett. What's the deal? - Denimadept (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

See here. --Kleinzach 10:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

WOW - time for a clean start. I feel bad for him - got to be hard to get your points across when this is someones reputation.Moxy (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The heart of the matter is (should be) the factual question, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

This is not just something that happened in the past. The last (of 30-odd) blocks was in January. --Kleinzach 02:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what the title of this section is vs the comment made - but the heart of the matter is accessibility - plain and simple. Only 3% of websites can be considered at the A accessibility level. Wikipedia is not there yet but we are trying and have policies in place to guide all of us in the right direction. Please helped in this process not impend the process. Our policy Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility and what the world at large is doing at Web accessibility Moxy (talk) 05:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The easiest and most accessible thing is not to have info boxes at all; then the disabled can just read the lead (assuming they are not blind) and obtain the same information.  Giano  09:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The blind can use screen reader software, which I would have thought would cope even more easily with a well-written lede section than with the bullet points in the accompanying infobox, although some screen readers can work with both. If I were using one, I think I'd prefer to hear someone reading the lede rather than rattling off the bullet points in the infobox. Is there anyone at this discussion who uses a screen reader? I'd be interested to hear their views. Voceditenore (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Giano is wrong: Infoboxes constitute an accommodation that improves accessibility for people with severe dyslexia. The presence of an infobox is the most accessible option for people who have difficulties with language.

Graham87 (talk · contribs) is our local expert on screen readers; I believe he's said in the past that they read like a plain old table containing the same information. If you want to know more about the value of lists versus sentences for people with language disorders, then I suggest that you ask Dolfrog (talk · contribs). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• What rubbish! I am the only member of Wikipedia category of dyslexic editors - I am severely dyslexic! why are you inventing this rubbish?  Giano  20:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, Giano, I invite you to go talk to Dolfrog. You might also consider putting WP:WikiProject Dyslexia on your watchlist. Perhaps you will discover that you are not the only dyslexic editor in a community of millions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have no need to. People who winge and whine about their disabilities are losers. The only answer is to get over it or sink in a well of self-pity. Acknowledge the problem and get over it.  Giano  20:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea from that there's a community of millions? Last time I looked there were a little over 3000 active editors. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. And a great deal of work (some ongoing) has been done over recent months to improve the accessibility of infoboxes even further. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The best way to improve the accessibility of inboxes is to scrap them and replace them with something better, not keep trying to plug the latest leaks and resisting all change "because we've always done it that way". George Ponderevo (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Moxy, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility is not a "policy", it's a guideline and says right at the top, "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." In any case, note that the "avoid collapsing" recommendation there does not apply to "tables that consolidate information covered in the main text, and in navboxes" but goes on to say that care should be taken in the design of collapsible elements to make them accessible on devices that do not support JavaScript or CSS. What else is an infobox but a table that consolidates information covered in the main text? This business about accessibility and metadata as arguments for requiring infoboxes in general and requiring them to be always uncollapsed is a bit of a red-herring. Voceditenore (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Common sense dictates you don't discriminate - so your saying who cares about the disable because its just a guide. I hope in the future you will think of others. I have updated the basics - pls try to understand all should have access to all that is there - in all formats - pls dont hide things from people - ... Wikipedia:Accessibility dos and don'ts. I dont think people understand how often people with disabilities ask for help - this is from today Wikipedia:Help desk#Readability for visually challenged folks Moxy (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

No one is discriminating against you. It just seems obvious that if you are disabled you will want the easiest possible service. What could be easier than a properly written lead, summarising accurately the whole article in a few short paragraphs. Discrimination would be forcing you to read some shortened hotch-potch of information forced into a box with a tiny picture. I think you are in danger of over-playing your hand Moxy.  Giano  15:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes the "tiny picture" is OK, as I think it is with Planyavsky's article, and sometimes it isn't, as with Montacute House. There's no one size fits all solution such as the metadata fans are insisting on, and metadata fundamentally shouldn't be in the article anyway. It's a bit like repeating a database schema in every row held in the database. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Your assuming all leads are done well.Moxy (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather trust a lead, than box written in a hurry by a drive-by editor.  Giano  15:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I think rather that he's suggesting that all leads ought to be done well, and if they're not then the accessibility problem is best alleviated by rewriting the leads. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Great point - but the reality is not many do have good leads. Should the disable wait a decade and may be by then they will all be ok. We have to deal with the situation now - not what we hope things to beMoxy (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

What we have to do is to start taking steps, even small ones like collapsing infoboxes, from where we are to where we'd like to be, not be continually resisting all changes that might help to take us there. And let's be honest, a vast number of articles are only leads, and often just a sentence or two long. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

That is 100 percent correct start by taking steps - but forward not backwards. This is about accessibility that happens to be about a box. Not the box first - its not about if they should or should not be there - its about if they are there should ALL be able to see them. Its very discerning to see the old time infobox debate about if they should be there or not now intruding on our basic accessibility concerns. Moxy (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a matter of judgement as to whether collapsing infoboxes is a step forwards or a step backwards and perhaps one on which honest editors may honestly disagree. But let's face facts; this infobox discussion has diddley squit to do with accessibility, just as it has nothing to do with the emitting of metadata. It's really all about one person trying to force his will on everyone else. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

No, Moxy, I'm not saying "Who cares about the disabled". I am saying that issues of accessibility in general (not simply accessibility for some types of disability), sometimes might have to be weighed with other considerations, as is the case with all guidelines. I have no doubt that you get questions at the help desk from people with disabilities. I note that in the case you linked to, it had to do with font size. Voceditenore (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Why not try to accommodate everyone over style? On a side note the font size in boxes is a great argument as to why we should not have infoboxs - font is to small in infoboxes to meet basic accessibility as per world wide guideline (you guys could use this fact for your argument of no infoboxs - The accessibility guide could be beneficial to you as well in your argumants if your willing to follow it.Moxy (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Once again, Moxy, will you please stop lumping together everyone who disagrees with you in any way into some extreme hypothetical position, which you then attack. Yes, the small font could be an argument against infoboxes in general, and in fact there may be lots of other types of disability for which infoboxes are not only no help but actually a hindrance. But that is a side issue. I have not made the argument here that there should be no infoboxes in articles, nor do I hold that opinion in general. This discussion is about whether collapsed infoboxes are acceptable. My view is that sometimes they can be, and that in my view since they only duplicate article content, it can sometimes be acceptable to collapse them without violating the accessibility guidelines. You disagree. Fine. Let's agree to disagree, but don't accuse me of wanting to abolish all infoboxes or not caring about the disabled. Voceditenore (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

If its there all should have access to it - if its not there so be it. This is my position. Moxy (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You don't want to accommodate everyone. You want to force everyone to have a great, ugly box because you are too lazy to read the lead.  Giano  15:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure about that? - Thank you for making it clear your not concerned about a portion of our readers and for calling them lazy. Not sure your an asset to your side of the argument - but all are free to speak there minds here. Need people to see its not about the box but what your doing to it. If its there all should have access to it - if its not there so be it. Moxy (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The core of the matter

Probably you are all watching Peter Planyavsky (who may smile at his fame). The lead was greatly improved, that is the heart of the matter, thank you, George! But I think this gets us to the core. (1947-05-09)9 May 1947 looks like 9 May 1947, but isn't the same. "9 May 1947" is just a string, {{birth date and age|1947|05|09|df=y}} is a granular form, good for calculations and transport to various languages and renditions of date formats (df), see (1947-05-09) 9 May 1947. I will go for that, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

That's an interesting example, but don't let's forget that Planyavsky's dob is already in the {{persondata}} template as well as in the lead just a few centimetres to the left of the infobox. I'd prefer to see basic information such as that coming from Wikidata rather than being repeated. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

And just to extend that idea, if all the important data was stored in Wikidata one could imagine a future in which readers who chose to could be presented only with the equivalent of an infobox, or various other presentation options. We could then also get rid of those ridiculous categories such as "1947 births" and so on. It's very clear what ought to be done, but will it be done, or are we determined to stick with the status quo because that's always what happens here? George Ponderevo (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I think of broader usage than what you prefer to see, - I wouldn't mind the lack in the infobox if the date in the lead was in granular form and marked by some invisible keyword as his dob, or if we had it in Wikidata already. Until then (!), I would prefer to supply the service to other cultures and/by Wikidata in the infobox, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

reading your last post: it's not so far away from what I thought. I see the infobox as a transition. Why should someone else collect the Wikidata for Planyavsky when he can take it from our infobox. Afterwards, that can disappear, like the interwiki language links, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

We're in serious danger of agreeing Gerda. I have no objection to the kind of infobox currently in Planyavsky's article, which doesn't compromise the visual presentation, but I do object to those infoboxes that are not infrequently longer than the article itself, or force ridiculously small lead images on us. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry to disagree with Gerda, a much-loved colleague, an inspirational editor, and manifestly more clued up than some of us about granular keywords, but ploughing wearily through the avalanche of words above, I see that the two editors most given to throwing their weight about in re compulsory infoboxes have been banned temporarily or permanently. As far as I know, nobody of the contrary view has been found wanting in the same way. For my own part I agree very much with George Ponderovo about "forc[ing] ridiculously small lead images on us", but my reason for putting my oar in here is primarily to add my voice to the appeal to AGF. Tim riley (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The ability to resize images in infoboxes has been explained more than once above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

And the downside of doing so has also been explained more than once. George Ponderevo (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Let me summarize this for those who've lost track, since Moxy and I seem to have the same view:

If and only if you are going to have one of those infoboxes on an article anyway, then that infobox should be arranged so that by default it does not hide the contents from users. For example, if and only if you are going to have an infobox on the article anyway, then users with repetitive stress injuries should not be required to choose between not knowing what's in the infobox and aggravating their injuries by clicking on a [Show] link.

Keep in mind that when you hide an entire infobox, rather than collapsing a single item, the user has no idea whether any useful information might be hiding in it. People looking for a map of Montacute House don't magically know that the map is hidden in that collapsed wrapper. People looking at the collapsed section of Elizabeth II have a pretty good idea that if you click on [show] after "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms List" that they're going to get a list of those other Commonwealth realms.

Do you now understand this position, and how it differs from "There must always be an infobox" (a position that neither Moxy nor I have ever supported)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I think your statement demonstrates very well that the info contained in the infobox can be misleading, as there is no map of Montacute House in that infobox. The map that's there is showing the position of Montacute, not Montacute House. The scale would need to be much, much larger to show the position of Montacute House. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You're saying Montacute House is not in Montacute? Check out Accuracy and precision. I get the feeling that you don't actually care how useful a map should be to readers, or understand how readers would use such a map. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying that Montacute House isn't in the village of Montacute, yes. I get the feeling you think you're a mind reader, when clearly you're not very good at it. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

From the article: "Montacute House is a late Elizabethan country house in the South Somerset village of Montacute". Please explain. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I've already explained; Montacute House is not in the village of Montacute. I'm not responsible for whatever the Montacute House article says, I didn't write it. The village is actually in what used to be the Montacute House estate, not the other way around. George Ponderevo (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a mighty fine hair to split. Explain again how that makes the map misleading, and what that has to do with the map's scale? Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

If you can't see the difference then I'm afraid that's your problem, not mine. And let's remind ourselves of what WhatamIdoing actually said: "People looking for a map of Montacute House." Where is the map of Montacute House? Isn't it about time we stopped using words as Humpty Dumpty did, and instead actually started to respect their meaning? George Ponderevo (talk) 03:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

So you're wasting time splitting semantic hairs. Will you derail the discussion over someone's spelling next? It's clear what the intended meaning of "People looking for a map of Montacute House." was. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Going nowhere

This debate is going in circles, with a complete lack of any compromise by the few die-hards who want blanket infoboxing. I suggest we abide by the poll above, archive this page and take it that the motion is carried "Most people agree that on scientific and statistical pages a fully displayed info-box can be useful; on pages concerned with history and the arts they are less useful. On such pages, if the principal editors feel an infobox is unnecesary, then leave it out; if they are divided then give the page a collapsed box and if they want an info box - then have an infobox." That surely cannot cause great offence or distress to anybody.  Giano  18:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the archiving. The discussion was becoming more and more fragmented. It's better to stop here now and carry on with aspects of the debate as necessary under new topics and in new places. We should always try to leave a coherent record of our decisions. That means knowlng when to stop. --Kleinzach 00:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Reversion of archiving

Hmm, Editor Giano, claiming that no compromise can be reached, suggests that the community abide by a flawed propsosal. Without comment three minutes later Editor Giano declares the topic closed. Does this not call to mind the spoiled child taking his ball and going home when he doesn't win? Sometimes I despair, I really do.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

My initial thoughts, though I didn't voice them. May I suggest a fresh attempt at discussion to find those points of commonality among editors rather than battering away with those points that raise maximum heat. Recognise that the discussions above didn't make much progress but don't give up on the process to see if the Manual of Style on infoboxes can be improved. Find short clear statements that (most) all can agree with. And that editors try to comment on the points not the other editors. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

By leaving out personal references, the summary above is much more palatable. I would fully support the following where the emphasis is shifted somewhat in favor of fully displayed infoboxes:

• "Most people agree that on scientific and statistical pages a fully displayed info-box can be is useful; on pages concerned with history and the arts they are may be less useful. On such pages, if the principal editors feel an infobox is unnecesary, then leave it out; if they are divided then give the page a collapsed box and if they want an info box - then have an infobox."

To insist that all infoboxes under all circumstances must be fully displayed is contrary to ignore all rules which by the way is an English Wikipedia policy. Boghog (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I will agree to that.  Giano  20:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

What's a "principal editor"? It sounds like a claim of ownership. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

That's precisely what it is. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, depending on context. It could just be a statement of fact; it's only a claim to ownership when it's used to claim special priveleges. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

That's correct. That's why we have {{Maintained}} to indicate the proper role of the main contributors. Chris Cunningham seems to be making a habit of these wild statements. --Kleinzach 01:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

{{Maintained}} refers to verification and sources. It is expressly not about stylistic matters, over which maintainers have no more say than any random passer-by (namely, that such matters shall be determined by strength of argument, rather than the identities or service histories of the parties in debate). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Rejection of compromise

I cannot agree to any 'compromise' whereby entire infoboxes are collapsed. I support collapsing sections of infoboxes, e.g., at Elizabeth II, and I support omitting any information that is needless or complex, but I cannot agree to a solution that keeps some users from even knowing what's been hidden from them.

This is good: The lengthy details are out of the way.

This is bad: Who knows what's hiding beneath that click?

Elizabeth II Elizabeth II in 2007 Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms List United Kingdom (1952–present) Canada (1952–present) Australia (1952–present) New Zealand (1952–present) Pakistan (1952–56) South Africa (1952–61) Ceylon (1952–72) Ghana (1957–60) Nigeria (1960–63) Sierra Leone (1961–71) Tanganyika (1961–62) Jamaica (1962–present) Trinidad and Tobago (1962–76) Uganda (1962–63) Kenya (1963–64) Malawi (1964–66) Malta (1964–74) The Gambia (1965–70) Guyana (1966–70) Barbados (1966–present) Mauritius (1968–92) Fiji (1970–87) The Bahamas (1973–present) Grenada (1974–) Papua New Guinea (1975–present) Solomon Islands (1978–present) Tuvalu (1978–present) Saint Lucia (1979–present) Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (1979–present) Belize (1981–present) Antigua and Barbuda (1981–present) Saint Kitts and Nevis (1983–present) Reign 6 February 1952 – present Coronation 2 June 1953 Predecessor George VI Heir apparent Charles, Prince of Wales Prime Ministers See list Born (1926-04-21) 21 April 1926 Mayfair, London, England, United Kingdom Spouse Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (m. 1947) Issue Detail Charles, Prince of Wales Anne, Princess Royal Prince Andrew, Duke of York Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex Names Elizabeth Alexandra Mary House House of Windsor Father George VI Mother Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon Religion Church of England Church of Scotland

Quick Reference Montacute House Location Montacute, Somerset Built c. 1598 Built for Edward Phelips Architectural style(s) Elizabethan Owner National Trust Listed Building – Grade I Designated 19 April 1961 Reference no. 434945 Scheduled monument Reference no. Somerset County No 187

I support selective, thoughtful use of the collapse options for individual sections, but not for 100% of the infobox. All readers need to be able find out what's in the box without having to click on anything. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree at all. The contrasting examples — one with minimal collapsed information and the other one with total hiding — are ridiculous. --Kleinzach 00:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Ridiculous indeed. Here's a counter-example, the Pendine Museum of Speed, which for the benefit of those who can't tell the difference between a collapsed infox and a chocolate bagel is only partially collapsed. Would anyone be surprised to see what information is revealed by the onerous task of clicking on the "show" button? George Ponderevo (talk) 02:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

And I would agree to that. 100% collapse is a very bad idea. Better to leave out the infobox entirely. Boghog (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

That's an opinion, not a fact. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's an opinion, but it seems to be an opinion shared by a lot of people who aren't (1) you or (2) your immediate opponents, and the primary purpose of a discussion like this is to find out the opinions of the people who are not in the middle of the dispute that prompted the discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"Most people are mostly wrong most of the time." Naturally you'll also be attempting to exclude Andy Mabbett from this discussion? George Ponderevo (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• No, Andy and his mates are far too busy tag teaming with me here [8]. This really is the Gospel according to St Andy.  Giano  21:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The above collapsed example is extreme since the non-collapsed title doesn't describe what the box contains. One can add a more descriptive title, for example:

Montacute House Infobox Manual of Style/Infoboxes/Archive 7 Location Montacute, Somerset Built c. 1598 Built for Edward Phelips Architectural style(s) Elizabethan Owner National Trust Listed Building – Grade I Designated 19 April 1961 Reference no. 434945 Scheduled monument Reference no. Somerset County No 187

I assume that infobox opponents are primarily objecting to the redundant text contained in the infobox and not necessarily to the images. Hence an even better solution would be not to collapse the image (if one is available). In another words, the collapsed infobox would look very much a thumbnail image with an extra line of text (plus a show button) indicating there is infobox information for the interested. Boghog (talk) 06:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Very much like the infobox displayed Pendine Museum of Speed mentioned below. Boghog (talk) 06:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that actually tells you anything about what the contents are. If it's on the Montacute House page, then it ought to be about Montacute, and infobox is Wikipedia's own jargon, which is likely to be opaque to readers. If instead you said something like "Location, history, and registries", that might give readers an idea of what they'd find if they clicked the link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Collapsed infobox section template

And now we have {{collapsed infobox section begin}}, used in articles (such as Pendine Museum of Speed, from which I have just removed it) to hide most of the infobox content. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

And I've just restored it. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

And in reverting me, to your preferred version, rather than moving to the talk page to discuss, as advised in WP:BRD, you referred to my single edit as "edit warring". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Accessibility dos and don'ts

There is a related edit war at Wikipedia:Accessibility dos and don'ts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is: because 'the disabled' led by Pigsonthewing are tag teaming and trying to move the goalposts while everyone else's attention is diverted here.  Giano  10:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The mess has been fixed. You should really read over What Not to Post. Moxy (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed conclusion/failed

I suggest we conclude this discussion and archive it, noting *Most people agree that on scientific and statistical pages a fully displayed info-box is useful; on pages concerned with history and the arts they may be less useful. On such pages, if the principal editors feel an infobox is unnecesary, then leave it out; if they are divided then give the page a collapsed box and if they want an info box - then have an infobox. --Kleinzach 02:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Disagree: I don't think the "principal editors" should have any more weight than they would on choosing which facts to cherrypick and which to conveniently leave out. Being a principal editor is no more than an empirical fact, worthy of kudos for hard work, but not for any special or priveleges weight given. Any easy way around this for the determined? Find an article and add a section to it, heavily copyedit it, or rewrite it, and suddenly you become a "principal editor" and are given special editwar priveleges over the infobox! Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Your phrasing gives your game away: "cherrypick", "conveniently leave out". That's rather insulting to those who graft away at these articles trying to make sure that they're balanced and neutral, only to watch them being trashed by the likes of Mabbett with his infobox obsession. But just so I have an idea about who I'm talking to, can you give me an example of an article on which you're a principal editor? George Ponderevo (talk) 03:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You could easily have clicked through to my user page, where I have them proudly displayed; lemme strut out the most significant ones: Louis Riel (comics), Dream of the Rarebit Fiend, Maus, Laura Secord, Canadian comics, Billy DeBeck, George Herriman, Goodman Beaver, Harvey Kurtzman's Jungle Book. Yes, I edit primarily comics articles, the ripest of ad hominem fodder (at least one editor on this very page has ad hominemed me in the past over just that tidbit).

Was this supposed to accomplish something? Or was it just suposed to prove that I couldn't possibly know what it means to put in sweat agonizing over the researching, reffing and writing of an article? Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I was simply asking a question, and your defensive reply goes some way to proving my point. When did it become a crime to ask questions? George Ponderevo (talk) 04:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Given the searing heat of the discusions here, it seemed unlikely to me that such a question could be innocent, especially following your accusation that I'd "given the game away", and that I was "rather insulting to those who graft away at these articles trying to make sure that they're balanced and neutral" (obviously I wouldn't attack my own kind, so I couldn't possibly be one of those productive editors). What "game" had I "given away", if not the one I'd inferred? Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Curly Turkey: How about 'contributing editors' rather than 'principal editors'? --Kleinzach 03:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You mean "contributing" as in I've made one edit, so I'm entitled to have my infobox if I want one? George Ponderevo (talk) 03:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's the gist of what I said,isn't it? Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Curly Turkey: Can you answer my question? --Kleinzach 04:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I had thought the answer was implicit: I'm in favour of favouring well-reasoned arguments, and not people, regardless of contribution (including zero contribution). Have I failed to answer any other part of your question? Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm in favour of an article by article approach. IMO editors who are involved in developing a text are entitled to a view on how the information is presented. In practice the editors who have invested the most time in the page will be the ones who have the strongest opinions. Someone who fixes a comma is unlikely to be bothered with boxes. --Kleinzach 03:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

But we're not talking about the "strongest opinions" of those who actually put the graft in, we're talking about infobox zealots like Andy Mabbett and his supporters who swan in from nowhere. George Ponderevo (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem of the metapedians, who move from project to project giving orders to article contributing editors, is maybe beyond our scope here, even if we've unfortunately attracted a few of them to this discussion. Kleinzach 04:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

True. We can only do what little we can. George Ponderevo (talk) 04:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

This is certainly a revealing conversation. Anyway, Curly Turkey (he of the multiple Featured Articles) is correct here: when it comes to matters of style, presentation, and general article formatting in line with the MoS, it is strength of argument rather than service record which should decide matters. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I see most have lost there way by this point. The conversation has long moved away from anything productive to hearsay, insults and blaming. This clearly suggests that we are at an impasse - I am sure all will agree to this point (Correct?). Believe it or not I will have to side with Kleinzach on his point "I'm in favour of an article by article approach.". So lets agree to disagree and take it up at the article level when need be. I dont see this approach of a collapsed box being widespread any time soon. I think its a bad idea to hide maps and images - but let the people that work on each article come to a conclusion. No way anything will be solve here on Hamburger Hill. Moxy (talk) 04:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Who's been arguing in favour of hiding images? What's characterised this discussion is the amount of misinformation that's been bandied about, and is apparently still being bandied about. George Ponderevo (talk) 04:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The conversation is simple to big to follow and heated for all to see clearly at this point - including myself. I was referring to Montacute House that we talked about above - I dont think its a good idea to hide the one and only map showing its facial location - but I could be wrong that we talked about or I am just making things up. Moxy (talk) 05:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Waking up to this, with no time to read it: I am surprised to see a bold wording about infobox yes or no, while the initial question (remember?) was: if an infobox is there, is it acceptable to collapse it? Can we perhaps deal with that question also? I said before: I prefer to have it open, but better collapsed than none, and perfectly fine to collapse long lists within one if they have a label showing what's in them, example Elizabeth II (pictured above). (All the talk about the main authors' influence is theory, - I get reverted. Admitted: it's getting better.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

So far as I can see, everyone is in agreement that {{collapsible list}} may be used in its intended manner in infoboxes, as with QE2. But that's quite different to the collapsing in the proposals above. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Correct. This is not about individual collapsed lists within long info boxes. See Suggested closing above [9] and the support it received. In order to widen consensus, those in the majority agreed to changes in wording. My proposed conclusion above is a version of this. It's unfortunate that some die-hards here are still trying to prevent this discussion closing. They know they've already lost the argument, and as far as I can see they also don't care about losing the respect of other editors, as a result of their devious tactics! Shame on them! Kleinzach 11:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Some think this discussion should be over. I think the weight of the "principal editors" was discussed above as not supported by all, that includes me, I support that facts should have higher weight than personal likes and dislikes. Repeating: I am a principal editor of articles for which I want an open infobox (and don't always get it), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• I am in favour of closing this debate. Further discussion is pointless because it won't be allowed to reach a solution until Andy Mabbett has either won it or been banned (yet again). Without compromise nothing can be achieved. Those of us who really dislike infoboxes have already compromised quite far enough. So until there is compomise from Mabett, there we are at stalemate. I would also point out that the vote above is 9 to 6 agreeing with the motion; that may not be a great response, but it shows that the majority do agree that blanket open infoboxes are not acceptable.  Giano  11:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• To be honest, Giano, the debate was over as soon you started to get personal. Very sad. --ClemRutter (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• So far, you Mabbettt and cartain others have thrown every cheap toy you own out of your prams to win this argument and still failed miserably. That you are now trying to take the high moral ground defies belief, but is not surprising. Fortunately, bad behaviour is seldom rewarded.  Giano  11:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not actually opposed to it closing, but for Moxy's reason that people are just talking past each other. Multiple editors have pointed out that the "principle editors" part of the suggested conclusion is simply false, and there's nothing like a general agreement that "on pages concerned with history and the arts [infoboxes] may be less useful". I'd rather it were simply closed with no conclusions, which leaves us with the status quo (individual articles may or may not have infoboxes as circumstances present themselves; weight of argument, rather than editor identity or affiliation, will be used to gauge consensus; this likewise applies to novel attempts at compromise such as using Javascript to collapse all or part of the text in an infobox). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

"principle editors" describes some well, - let me try:

If an article has an infobox, it is desirable that its content is visible. If part of the content is a long list, that can be collapsed with a label showing the nature of the content. Collapsing of the complete content with no specific label is possible if there is no room for more, but should be an exception. In all cases of conflict about the issue, discussion on the article's talk should precede substantial changes to the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support closing per Giano's comment above and his initial Going nowhere comment. Truthkeeper (talk) 11:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Kleinzach's approach has a chance for consensus if the weight of the principal editor gets reduced, why stop now? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I support closing down the discussion on the basis of Chris Cunningham's analysis. A lot of text has been expended on the subject with little to show for it. The status quo (some articles have infoboxes, some don't, in a few there is some form of consensus for a compacted or minimised infobox) is unchanged; there has been no blanket agreement to either omit or include infoboxes in any topic let alone wikipedia-wide. (Not to say that some editors may not have ideas about making improvements to infoboxes but that would seem probably filter through piece-meal as part of general improvements.) GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

If we're going to close it, then by all means close it, but not with sneaky riders on the closing note about the way the participants've supposedly agreed to disagree. Close—total impasse—status quo—see you at the next flame war (hopefully on a lighter topic, like abortion or Palestine). Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This "discussion", if one can call it that, should be closed without consensus. Too many words are being spent on topics that don't address the initial question: [Is] hiding infoboxes inside collapsed sections; or moving them to the foot of articles ... acceptable? It seems pointless to carry on if we can't confine ourselves to that question.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Chris Cunningham's and Graeme Leggett's views on the closure. I am also quite bemused that this whole keruffle was started over a handful of relatively obscure articles with low page view statistics and very few watchers, at least until this all began. Meanwhile, the very arguments used here about accessibility and the attempts to apply the "no collapse" recommendation to infoboxes which hitherto applied only to the article itself have simply highlighted far more glaring inconsistencies and ...er.. "violations" on far more important articles all across Wikipedia. Just the tip of the iceberg:

• Asia has a collapsed list of major metropolitan areas by population in the infobox and nowhere in the article
• Acetylene (and I assume all chemical articles) has both the SMILES and International Chemical Identifier cells collapsed in the infobox and the information appears nowhere else in the article
• Elizabeth II has the exact dates of her reign as Queen for each Commonwealth country, e.g. South Africa (1952–61), as a collapsed cell in the infobox with the exact dates listed nowhere else in the article. This infobox also commits the MOS sin of linking to a section in the article itself.

No one has got excited about these and the literally 1000's of other key articles which have at least 2 and often more collapsed cells. In terms of accessibility, a totally collapsed infobox requires only 1 click to show everything. Nevertheless, the collapsed infobox at this chap's article is seen as a major threat to accessibility and the Wikipedia Way? Voceditenore (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a pretty good summary, and if we could work out why this kerfuffle blew up we might go some way towards preventing similar kerfuffles blowing up in the future, as they have too often in the past. George Ponderevo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Curly Turkey, Voceditenore, Chris Cunningham's and Graeme Leggett's views on the closure.--ClemRutter (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Visibility of Infobox

Proposal: If an article has an infobox, it is desirable that its content is visible. If part of the content is a long list, that can be collapsed with a label showing the nature of the content. Collapsing of the complete content with no specific label is possible if there is no room for more, but should be an exception. In all cases of conflict about the issue, discussion on the article's talk should precede substantial changes to the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not obvious what "if there is no room for more" refers to here. I really don't think we've a consensus to make any explicit changes to the guideline's recommendations for now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Disagree (and I'm fed up with this page) There is no reason at all why many infoboxes cannot be collapsed. If the main, serious contributing editors (and it's obvious who they are) want an infobox. Let them have one. Otherwise, let's have some sensible discretion. If a page is complex an not concerned with mathematical, chemical and/or structural facts, often a fully displayed info box is not essential, providing that the lead is properly written. On such pages, it is even arguable that an info box is not necessary at all.  Giano  18:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

There are plenty of reasons that infoboxes shouldn't be collapsed, you just don't like any of them. The same old treadmill of disinfobox arguments as always. What it comes down to is: Peole who want infoboxes want them open. People who don't want infoboxes are willing to "compromise" by obscuring them. Yet another battle in the Disinfobox Wars ensues, at the end of which someone tries to close it by slipping certain language into the closing comment which is favourable to the disinfobox crowd. Not buying it. Close this motherfucker already as "inconclusive"—nothing has been achieved here. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Clue: Go away, horrid little man (4 3).  Giano  21:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

And ad hominems. Lots and lots and lots of ad hominems. Same old Disinfobx War. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You clearly don't know what an "ad hominem" is Curly Turkey. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I clearly do. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Then tell me what you think it is and try to convince me. Who knows, you may get lucky. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the onus is on you to convince the rest of the world you know what you're talking about. And this is just the forum where people wil be most interested to hear it, I'm sure. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually it isn't, as the rest of the world, or at least those of us who attended school regularly, already know what an "ad hominem" is, whereas you clearly don't. I'd recommend that you consider consulting a book on basic logic, or maybe ask your parents or teacher. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Except that (a) I clearly do, and have no obligation to prove otherwise until clearly shown I'm wrong; (b) condescension alone does not win an argument; (c) look, Ma, another tangent! Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Then prove it. Tell me what you think an "ad hominem" is. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Why, so you can split hairs between over (formal) logical vs. colloquial use of the term? Who gains from that? All we get is another boring tangent, like the one about "People looking for a map of Montacute House.", where you split hairs wherever is convenient to you, while contributing nothing to the discussion. Deraillery at its most time-consuming. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

No, so that you can demonstrate that you have no idea what you're talking about. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Gerda: I think attempts at proposals should be made at another time. How many tangents have there been already? Multiple attempts have been made to keep all this on topic, but staying on topic is not what the editors seem to be interested in. Let this thing close, and try again another time when people's heads have cooled off. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

No, so you can derail the discussion with endless tangents about marginal, irrelevant topics. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The tangents, such as metadata and accessibility, have been initiated by those with an almost religious fervour for infoboxes. Collapsing infoboxes, either completely or partially, has been offered as an interim compromise solution until there's something better on the table. Infoboxes have been partially collapsed for years, and so collapsing them even further under certain circumstances is simply an extension of that idea. It's not to do with "cool heads", it's to do with blind obsession. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

"It's all the other side's fault." Close, already, with "It's all the other side's fault." as the closing comment. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes there's no other way to say it, when it clearly is. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree to all of this except the "Collapsing of the complete content with no specific label" sentence, which is unclear (no room? Is there some limit on how tall a page can be now?) and promotes what I believe to be an undesirable lack of information to readers.

We have other options available for "compromise", such as collapsing related sections rather than the entire thing (Montacute House might have two collapsed sections, "Location" and "History"), or actually finding a real consensus (which might involve removing the whole thing). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

But there is no problem now with Montacute House, and there wasn't until Pigsonthewing stuck his snout into it. The details of how and when we might choose to collapse infoboxes is maybe still open for discussion, but that we collapse infoboxes, either in whole or in part, is not. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

What a sec - your ok with the hidden image/map at Montacute House? You sure about this fact - because this is not what you said before? Is there many articles with this accessibility problem (meaning hiding of images and/or maps?)Moxy (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The map isn't hidden, just requires one click to see it. And what I said before was that the map isn't a map of Montacute House, as was claimed. Do try to keep up. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

At this point I can only hope as all get older this concept of accessibility will be apparent to everyone. Would love to be young again. Moxy (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I can only hope that it will become clearer to you sooner than that. How do you manage to navigate around hyperlinks generally now for instance? Every Wikipedia page is stuffed full of them, yet you're objecting to this one? How does that work?George Ponderevo (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

There are browsers such as Conkeror which are entirely keyboard-driven. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

So what's the problem then? George Ponderevo (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I press tab alot I mean alot sometimes 50 times on a page to get to the right link. On bad days when my hands dont work properly I use a Head/Eye Control Input - that is not affordable to the majority of people with this problem. There are millions of us (18 to 25 percent of the worlds population have a disability) - for more info on how we use the net see How disabled user access the Internet. We need to make things easier to see - not harder - so adding new ones is crazy when as a community we are trying to fix the problem - not add to it. All that said I am gal I live in this time period - 25 years ago a would have had to ask someone to hold and turn pages in a book for me.Moxy (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there is: see my post about citation backlinks.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually there isn't, because there shouldn't be any citations in infoboxes. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Why not? - Denimadept (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Have you not read anything that's been written here? George Ponderevo (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Your still pretty new so its understandable you may not be aware of the norms outside your area of interest. Pls see Canada and FA article for an example of why refs are sometimes used in the boxes.Moxy (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whether citation references should or should not be in infoboxes (a tangential topic for another time and another place), citation references are in infoboxes and are permitted according to MOS:INFOBOX §References in infoboxes. Since citation references are in infoboxes, backlinks to them from the citation should always work. When things that should work, don't work, then readers are confused. We are not here to confuse readers.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Disagree The statement " If an article has an infobox, it is desirable that its content is visible." is a non sequitur. Kleinzach 08:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Reverting complete text 'collapse'

I've reverted the complete collapse of this discussion. Nice joke! However this discussion should remain visible. If Wikipedia itself goes belly up in due course, scholars can point to this discussion as indicative of the attitudes that caused the final, big collapse. Kleinzach 08:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

And I've reverted you. This discussion will be searchable and linkable and will be archived like any normal discussion; your stated purpose will be achievable whether it is collapsed or uncollapsed. However, it clearly is not achieving anything useful to the encyclopedia. Please do not reopen it at this time. If you'd like to argue with me about it, please feel free to complain at my talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Collapsed discussion

Nikkimaria has twice collapsed this whole discussion [10] and [11]. Why did he/she do this instead of using archive tags that would have left the debate visible?

What exactly is Nikkimaria trying to tell us? That I (and other participants) are wasting our time here? That next time there's a discussion started by Andy Mabbett, Moxy, WhatamIdoing or whoever, the content editors should just ignore it? Can Nikkimaria please tell us? Thank you. Kleinzach 01:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

What I'm telling you, and what multiple participants on both "sides" have pointed out above, is exactly what I said in the collapse: this discussion is going nowhere and is serving only to fuel drama. Perhaps the next time we will have better productivity, but for now continuing this is doing more harm than good. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question: Why do this instead of using archive tags that would have left the debate visible? Far from suppressing the drama, your little coup de théâtre is the climax of it. --Kleinzach 02:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC) (a 1RR editor)

Charming. The debate is fully viewable and searchable, if you're interested; collapsing is helpful simply because of its length. Besides, simple collapsing usually reduces drama more than archive tags (and there's only one reason that hasn't been the case here). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

"Collapsing usually reduces drama more than archive tags". Really? Surely collapsing and archiving both stop the conversation, drama or no drama, to exactly the same extent. --Kleinzach 04:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

This is great.  :-) - Denimadept (talk) 03:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd've just brought a large thing of popcorn, but I'm pretty sure it'd run out before the drama did. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I just wish I'd thought of collapsing the discussion back in 2008! - Denimadept (talk) 05:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Apparently editors feel strongly about not collapsing text. Who knew. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Postscript

A possible workable solution destroyed, productive editors gone from the project, personal information revealed, but one editor learned something. This is all disruption, pure and simple, should be treated as such, and dealt with. Sooner rather than later. Disgusted. Truthkeeper (talk) 06:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. - Denimadept (talk) 06:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Truthkeeper, I will not comment your point of view, but correct two facts: the possible workable solution is not destroyed but under discussion, and more than one editor learned, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

You have commented. Truthkeeper (talk) 08:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

What with that TfD having attracted a curious amount of attention from editors who have neither participated here nor on any of the pages said template is used on, nor on TfD in general (but who, felicitously, all agree strongly with the premise), I doubt it'll be deleted. What a fortunate and absolutely unexpected turn of events. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I am for open information, and think Wikipedia would be better without that template which serves the purpose of hiding. I still didn't vote "Delete" because seeing links to a template is preferable to hidden hiding. - Didn't you know that it is more important who says something than what? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Per Truthkeeper88...Modernist (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

+2. Agreed!  DDStretch  (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Ya know folks? a bloke could easily go nuts, in this place. GoodDay (talk) 05:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Even with editors retiring left and right, we've already run out of popcorn! Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:59, 16 March 2013 (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.