Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

infobox question

I would like to apply an infobox to several articles, but am not sure which template qualifies for these articles. They are:

• Hobart Area Transportation Study
• Southern Transport Investment Program
• Metropolitan Adelaide Transport Study
• 1969 Melbourne Transportation Plan

All of the above are articles on published Transportation plans undertaken in their respective cities. kind regards, Wiki ian 09:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

what information would go in the infobox? Frietjes (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Something like Template:Infobox legislation maybe, or Template:Infobox court case? --Izno (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

A Template:Infobox study of some sort? We wouldn't want to restrict it to simply transportation studies. --Izno (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Minority official languages

Please give your comment on following case of infoboxes of settlements in Croatia. There is an long-term conflict about which information should be included in line official name. Whether it is all names that are official according to reliable and official sources (2 or 3 names), or we need to make our own decision to use only one name and declare other official languages (if they are languages ​​of ethnic minorities in Croatia) to be unnecessary even when some minority group make up majority in local community and use two official languages based on law. We had such debate here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia#Minority languages where community agreed on usage of minority names in infoboxes and user which for a long time remove my referenced edits was blocked temporarily. Unfortunately, now he again delete minority official languages from infoboxes and also remove without discussion line official languages. His edits are not considered to be vandalism, but those edits are POV-pushing and disruptive. For this reason, based on recommendation of member of WP Croatia I turn to you if you can confirm that all official languages are necessary or unnecessary for reader equally and that line official languages also is not unnecessary. Please give your opinion.--MirkoS18 (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, and I doubt that many here would care to step into any Balkans dispute. George Ponderevo (talk) 03:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I thank you for your neutrality and distance. I would just like to say to George that even people from Balkans somehow manage, with great effort, to realize that it is English Wikipedia-so there is no need for any kind of superior cynical comments. I want completely withdraw my plea for your opinion since I miraculously found that this conflict can be overridden even among aggressive and unreasonable Balkans editors. All the best.--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that with your "super cynical comments" remark you demonstrate very nicely why so few care to venture into any Balkans dispute. It would be like expecting a rational debate from a box of frogs. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Comparison with frogs, well, maybe you to have some Balkans traces in yourself. As for decent people, I never had a very positive opinion about them, but that's completely another topic. I just think insults, underestimations and collective labeling should be avoided on this project. So much from me on this topic, and without any cynicism I want you all the best.--MirkoS18 (talk) 04:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Belated comment: In UK articles, where the Welsh language is official only in Wales, we would give the Welsh name in articles on places in Wales, but not in those on English places. I don't know if that helps. Where minority language speakers form say over 20% of the population of the location, it would seem reasonable to include that version. Otherwise maybe not. Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Marriage template

I don't know if this has been discussed or not, so I'm sorry if I'm repeating something someone has already said but is there anyway to put in (present) for the couples that are still together, it looks weird and not uniform when an infobox looks like:

John Doe (m. 1993 - 1999)

Bob Dole (m. 2000)

can't the template be updated to have (present) put in there? Like this:

John Doe (m. 1993 - 1999)

Bob Dole (m. 2000 - present)

I think it would look better and nicer. Is there any way we could change this? Lady Lotus (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Just noting that this is also being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates#Marriage template. — Bility (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Routine use of infoboxes for biographical articles

I revised the following paragraph today so that it read as follows:

Although infoboxes are routinely used for certain types of articles such as biographies, the use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any particular article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.

My revision was reverted, and I'd appreciate knowing why it isn't useful to state the fact that infoboxes are routinely used for certain types of articles such as biographies since that is the case. NinaGreen (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I prefer the original version as it is more balanced and less nuanced. Why actually did you want to change it? --Kleinzach 07:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that the use of infoboxes is much more a matter of routine in articles other than biographies. I'm not aware of any discussion about the desirability of infoboxes for, say, films, albums, geographical entities; biographies is definitely an area where there are some discussions about the suitability of infoboxes in certain cases. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Some editors dislike the use of infoboxes, and go around deleting them from articles to which they've otherwise contributed nothing. Consensus concerning the use of an infobox in a particular article can never be reached with an editor who dislikes the use of infoboxes per se. There needs to be something in Wikipedia policy which states that it's become fairly standard practice to include infoboxes in many different types of Wikipedia articles because of their usefulness to Wikipedia users. It doesn't matter whether biographies are used as the example; any other category of article could be used. NinaGreen (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

That kind of statement can easily be turned on its head — Some editors like the use of infoboxes, and go around adding them to articles to which they've otherwise contributed nothing . . . this is really a subjective approach to the issue. --Kleinzach 21:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes for biographies of military figures is pretty much routine. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit should be reverted - Infoboxes are the norm for most article not just bios.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs)

If they are the norm, why is that they are only on a small minority of articles. Maybe 'norm' is the wrong word to use here? Kleinzach 01:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Not that I agree with the edit (I think it's unnecessary, even as an infobox fan), but 1.3 million transclusions is hardly a "small minority of articles". Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

1.3 million transclusions! Is that accurate? That would mean that about 30% of articles have boxes. Seems unlikely, but I will strike out 'small'. Still, 30% is not a 'norm'. Of course the infobox figures are not relevant here anyway, since we are talking about a particular type of infobox.--Kleinzach 03:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Since I'm not supporting the addition, the only relevance my statement had was to your "small minority" statement.

The documentation of the page linked to is minimal, but I assume it includes talk pages, help pages, etc. I don't know what percentage of that would be actual articles, nor do I know what percentage of infoboxes transclude the {{Infobox}} template (many may work from a different base template, or from scratch, for all I know). Nor do we know how many of those translcusions are on fleshed-out articles—I imagine there are an awful lot of infobox-free stubs out there, probably disproportionatley higher than on, say, GAs and FAs. For instnace, out of 68 candidates at today's WP:FAC, only Karma in Jainism, Middle Ages, Gospel of the Ebionites, and Flying Spaghetti Monster (or just under 6%, a "tiny minority") have no infobox. While this is hardly a rigorous study, it does suggest strongly that a majority of active FA-targeting editors are fond of infoboxes. It also suggests that "a minority of articles use infoboxes" is only true in the broadest sense, as it includes the huge number of low-quality, incomplete, unsourced, and otherwise problematic articles, most of which never got to the point where including/excluding an infobox was even a decision. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately the FAC list is mostly the usual mix of infoboxy things like films, battleships, hurricanes and video games. Constitution of May 3, 1791 is one on the list that well illustrates why infoboxes are often not a good idea. Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this tangent is not about disinfobox ranting, but about the popularity or un– of infoboxes. Either way, everyone is apparently disposed to interpreting the data to fit their own ends—another reason to leave the wording as it was. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I thought there might be a shortcut called [[WP:PREMISE]] but there isn't. Suffice to say there lots of articles that are neither stubs nor FA/GA. But perhaps we are getting off topic anyway? --Kleinzach 06:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I think it's actually brought us back on topic, as this all shows another reason the wording should stay the way it was. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

There are two problems with the original wording, which is:

The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.

The first problem is that the policy statement is unrealistic in that it doesn't recognize how prevalent infoboxes are for certain types of articles (not all types, but definitely certain types). For certain types of articles infoboxes are becoming almost the norm. The second problem is that the claim in the policy statement that inclusion of infoboxes is generally the result of consensus among editors is demonstrably false. Most new articles are created by a single editor, and that editor decides to use, or not to use, an infobox. Thus a problem arises when another editor comes along who dislikes infoboxes, and deletes it, which at worst almost amounts to vandalism, and at best becomes a huge waste of the first editor's time and a source of potential conflict among editors. A realistic policy statement which clarifies these two issues would thus be helpful to editors, and ultimately of benefit to Wikipedia users. It just makes sense for the policy statement to recognize the prevalence of infoboxes so that editors are not lead to believe that deleting them can be a matter of personal preference alone, and it also makes sense for the policy statement to recognize the reality that the initial inclusion of an infobox in an article is not generally a matter of consensus at all, but the work of a single editor who is creating an article or substantially revising an existing article. NinaGreen (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

A very POV statement of the situation - don't you mean (also): "Thus a problem arises when another editor comes along who likes infoboxes, and adds one, which at worst almost amounts to vandalism, and at best becomes a huge waste of the first editor's time and a source of potential conflict among editors"? Can you point to any examples where the first editor's infobox was removed by others, causing a lengthy row? All the tedious rows I know were when a drive-by infobox fan added one, as today at Rogier van der Weyden. Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I could name names, but I don't think it would be helpful. It's happened to me several times. I'm merely trying to get the Wikipedia policy to reflect reality in two specific ways, firstly by having the policy acknowledge that infoboxes are now very common for certain types of articles, and secondly, that the addition of infoboxes is almost never the product of consensus. They're usually added by an editor who is creating an article from scratch, or an editor who is substantially revising an existing article. The conflict caused by drive-bys, whether they're adding or deleting infoboxes, could be avoided through a clearer statement of Wikipedia policy, which is what I tried to bring about via my edit. NinaGreen (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I doubt it, as very few will read the policy and many who have don't respect it. I also doubt that "They're usually added by an editor who is creating an article from scratch, or an editor who is substantially revising an existing article" - not in my part of the forest anyway. I don't object to some such statement but it should be more balanced than your attempt, & I suggest you work with Kleinzach to formulate a wording. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

If there's a clear statement of policy, at least it can be pointed to when a conflict arises, and can form a basis for resolution of the conflict. Policy is there to be followed, but it has to reflect the reality of the situation or there's nothing to follow. I'm happy to work with any editor who is interested in setting out a clear statement of policy. Could we start with this? Here's the current statement:

The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors of each individual article.

Why not delete the first sentence, since in a practical sense it's superfluous, and then continue with:

Whether the inclusion of an infobox best meets the needs of a particular article, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use should be determined by consensus among editors working on the article in question.

I think that would cover the bases. It puts the emphasis on best meeting the needs of the particular article, and on editors who are actually working on the article, as opposed to drive-bys.NinaGreen (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not! That greatly reduces clarity. Johnbod (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The "neither required nor prohibited" bit comes up in arguments a lot. I'm sure a lot of editors would be sad to see it go. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The bit seems to be needed for all who need to defend their view against an extreme position. I will say no more. Richard Wagner is still on the Main page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

ps: everybody is welcome to add infoboxes to "my" articles, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The current policy isn't clear, or even accurate (as noted above, infoboxes are rarely added by consensus). The gist of the policy should be that infoboxes should be used (1) only where they meet the needs of a particular article, and (2) that that decision should be arrived at by editors working on the article who have some knowledge of the needs of the article in question by virtue of having worked on it and on similar articles. Stating this in policy would make it a lot easier to discourage drive-bys who have little knowledge of the needs of a particular article but just happen to focus on infoboxes because they like, or dislike, them. As for the statement that infoboxes are 'neither required nor prohibited', isn't that merely stating the obvious? Anyone looking at Wikipedia can see that lots of articles have infoboxes and lots don't have them. But if the obvious needs to be stated, I'd have no objection. Surely we can agree on a change which will make the policy effective? It's no wonder there are disruptive debates over infoboxes at the individual article level if we can't even agree on a clear and coherent statement of policy which would discourage those disruptive debates.:-) Let's give it one more try, shall we? NinaGreen (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and now Ludwig van Beethoven - how's your watchlist today! Johnbod (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I see this comment was added:

After lengthy consideration at the Wikipedia Composers project, it has been determined that infoboxes are not appropriate for composer articles. Before adding an infobox, please review the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infobox debates.

That means the current policy statement definitely needs to be amended since it currently states that infoboxes are not prohibited for any article, but clearly they are prohibited for an entire category of articles. NinaGreen (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

This is the problem - confusion - There is a segment of Wikipedia that is not informing our editors properly and this has led to may conflicts over years. NO project can own a set of articles as indicated above in the quoted text - as outlined at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#WikiProjects do not own articles. This type of wrong advice is one of the example given at WP:Advice pages on what not to do. All that said if the people at that article (its talk page discussion) dont want an infobox thats there prerogative. If a group of editors (be it a project or not) wishes to sit in an isolated corner there's not much the rest of us can do but try to inform our editors of the problem - thus we have malformed notes all over stating you need to ask if its ok or get consensus first to add a box to specific types articles.Moxy (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

You can add a box to any article - just don't get shirty if you are promptly reverted. Johnbod (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, it means that WikiProject Composers is trying to flaunt the community-wide consensus again. The "nor prohibited" line was added specifically because that little group of editors tried to enforce a ban on infoboxes in all biographies within their scope. They can't do that: "it has been determined" that no group of editors has thr right to tell the community what the community is allowed to do. Calling yourself "a WikiProject" does not give you control over the articles you choose to work on. (What they may do is say that some editors have expressed serious reservations about these infoboxes, which is rather different from saying that "it has been determined that infoboxes are not appropriate for composer articles", as if the whole community agreed to this.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

They have just said they are against them. Johnbod (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Language like "After lengthy consideration at the Wikipedia Composers project, it has been determined that infoboxes are not appropriate..." does not convey reality, which is that half a dozen self-selected editors made this "determination" and that these half a dozen people have no right to demand that the other 121,836 current editors of the English Wikipedia must obey their "determination". They are trying to pass this pronouncement off as being an official rule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

This oft-repeated (by one editor) characterisation of editors working on improve music articles is inaccurate. Editors who have reservations about the effectiveness of music-related biographical infoboxes are spread over six or seven projects, though as Johnbod as pointed out many non-musical projects also share the same misgivings. The idea of a kind of musical cabal formed by ”half a dozen self-selected editors” is nonsense. All you have to do is count the opinions in the various Rfcs that have occurred. Incidentally, all groups on Wikipedia are self-selected to some extent, so this criticism, while it sounds quasi-sociological, is beside the point. Kleinzach 05:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to respond at the bottom, because I spent a lot of time on a reply to this. –Quiddity (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Opinion: I don't think this discussion is going anywhere. The present MOS wording is our best attempt at a workable compromise. The infobox, as a publishing device, has been with us for a long period of time. I'm not sure when it was first used. Maybe in the 1950s if not earlier. Publishers have always had problems coordinating these boxes with main text. (I've had a lot of experience with print encyclopedias so I know this first hand.) I am hoping that the evolution of the Wikipedia software (which still has a lot of failings) we will be able to have 'smarter' boxes that obviate some of the problems. Unfortunately that hasn't happened yet and these boxes remain one of the most old-fashioned aspects of the interface.

Our debate here on Wikipedia is complicated by a communication problem. Essentially the two sides are talking about two different things. (This has been pointed out many times, but still routinely ignored.) The 'pro-boxers' in this argument always refer to infoboxes in general, whereas the 'anti-boxers' are talking about biographical infoboxes. So the 'pro-boxers' talk in generalities, while the 'anti-boxers' talk in specifics. Until there is a recognition of this difference, I don't see any progress being made. Kleinzach 23:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It's by no means as simple as that - the Visual arts project is mostly against infoboxes for artworks (and biographies), the opera project solidly against them for operas, the architecture project against them for houses and so on. No doubt there are other areas I'm not aware of. So it's best to keep it general and flexible, as it is now. Johnbod (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

This is wrong, sorry. Project opera is looking at an infobox for operas, which - to my observation - is ready to be used. The example is wonderful. - I am late to this discussion, can't read it all, but this at least I would like to correct. The opera infobox is intentionally simple. Why there is so much resistance against a simple infobox with key facts about a person, be it a composer or someone else, is a mystery to me, - I guess there is a lot of emotions in the history that I can hardly understand. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I take your point. It's not just one issue — there are other ramifications. But I think my point about the boxes not being 'smart' applies across the board, Kleinzach 23:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Its not about what one set of editors want over the other - its about the problems that are caused and time being wasted because of this. I can count on my hand the amount of people always in conflict over this in bios - there is also a subset of editors (like myself) that spend lots of time explaining to newbies the situation of these boxes in some bios after good faith additions are deleted.Moxy (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

(Many edit conflicts. Slow down, y'all! Breathe!)

The current manual of style (not policy) statement here does not need to be amended, as infoboxes are not "prohibited", they are simply discouraged as a default, by certain editors, who form a majority of active and comment-making participants in certain wikiprojects.

There is indeed, Template:Infobox classical composer, which is used in a few articles (47 as of today), based on the preference of the primary author(s) of each article, and based on discussions on individual talkpages. It would be good if that template could be gently mentioned somewhere in Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes. That template was created (3 years ago) as part of an attempt at a compromise, giving minimal fields, and clear documentation, in order to lower the potential for erroneous information. There was an extensive and informative discussion during its creation, where most participants remained civil and helpful throughout. It makes for educational reading, for anyone interested in the topic of Infoboxes and their place here.

It certainly is not just some of the classical music biography writers though; there are an abundance of editors in various fields, who disagree with the notion of infoboxes, on various levels, whether for "slippery slope" reasons, or aesthetic objections, or other concerns. The wikiprojects are also definitely not united in their objections to infoboxes. –Quiddity (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm convinced by the discussion that this a pretty intractable problem, and that the current policy is probably the best solution for the time being. Infoboxes are pretty routinely used in biographical articles of English historical figures from the period 1400-1650, which is the corner of Wikipedia editing I was coming from when I first made the amendment. I find them very useful for that type of article because they allow Wikipedia readers to grasp biographical information at a glance, and because there are often no images available to include in the article, and an infobox provides some visual interest for Wikipedia readers. But I've learned from the discussion here that it's a different story with other types of article, and that editors in those areas prefer not to include infoboxes for various reasons. Thanks to all. It's been very informative. NinaGreen (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

They may well be unproblematic in those articles, but for example they cause big problems (that is to say, are wildly inaccurate) in earlier articles about Islamic/Central Asian people on whom "nationalities" and forced and so on. They work well for articles where the relevant data fields are predictable and can easily be filled by (let's face it) young editors with next to no subject area background - sports people, taxa, ships etc, cities, films etc. Once the template is set up, many editors will try to fill a large number of fields, no matter how inappropriately. And so on. Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes gives some of the case against. Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind that that essay has been around for a long time, and many editors who are very familiar with its content (and aren't necessarily so young) strongly object to its arguments. Just remember to bring a salt shaker when you consume it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Partially in reply to the thread between WhatamIdoing and Kleinzach, a little bit above, but also generally to everyone:

There is not a complete agreement, at any of the wikiprojects concerned, about making strict bans on infoboxes. For example, there are composer articles that have infoboxes, and there are composer article writers who support the notion of selective or extensive or total infobox usage. The same goes for articles (and the writers thereof, and the wikiprojects that they are both associated with) about bridges, houses, magazines, poems, plays, various biographies, and the other assorted topics that currently chose to actively forgo having an available infobox.

It is somewhat misleading, to include that statement, as written, in any article. It's also inappropriate according to WP:Hidden. That hidden text seems to be impossible to search for (?), so I can't tell how many articles it is currently embedded in.

Talking of quasi-sociological thoughts, I wrote this to someone recently, and it's worth repeating onwiki: "I thoroughly understand that some editors object aesthetically to the visual block overwhelming/dominating the top of the article. I also understand that some editors object to the potential for oversimplification/misinformation that infoboxes come along with. Or they object to the grossly complex wikicode that the infobox places at the top of any article, thereby terrifying many new-editors. I will forever defend their right to voice these objections, and to be taken seriously. Despite these problems, I believe infoboxes are more beneficial than harmful, though I am reluctant to impose them more forcefully on the (articles of the) editors who object [who are stereotypically of the Brilliant Prose writing archetype, which we so desperately need to retain]."

Some (not all) of the "pro-infobox" editors aren't helping this issue by denying/ignoring the various problems that infoboxes can or do have; equally, some (not all) of the "anti-infobox" editors aren't helping this issue by refusing to give an inch (lest the opposition take a mile). Some of the problems can be solved. Some of the problems are inherent to a wiki. Some of the problems will require a compromise between subjective viewpoints, or between the acceptable harms given the proven benefits.

Making any of this into an "us vs them" situation is pretty much the worst thing that can happen. It destroys discussion, dehumanizes editors, and prevents the possibility of solving any of the problems.

I suspect that infoboxes will eventually arrive at most articles, but I'd vastly prefer that they do so over the very long term (many years), whilst taking great care to avoid the avoidable problems, and minimize the unavoidable problems, and not ever (ever) insulting the editors who disagree with us over subjective problems. –Quiddity (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

For visual art articles, there is also the problem that infoboxes take up valuable space that should be used for pictures (often all of it for a short article), force pictures in them too small, and invariably mean that an often unhelpful portrait (crappy old engraving, or Victorian photo of man hiding behind a beard) goes at the top instead of an informative artwork. Plus the art infoboxes are perhaps more than usually full of traps for the serial infobox filler. Johnbod (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Johnbod's comments — which are different from ones that I have made in the past concerning music related bio-infoboxes — illustrate the particularity of concerns about the appropriateness of infoboxes.

Quiddity's thoughtful analysis is helpful as far as it goes, but I should add one important point. The coal-face editors who have resisted the uniform application of the boxes, have not been trying to establish guidelines or policies applicable throughout WP, they have merely argued for intelligent and selective application. In that sense they have adopted an entirely defensive, article-by-article-based opposition to the use of boxes that convey wrong information and trivia, typically about nationality, names, and obscure details that aren't in the article. The tragedy of this argument is that it has decimated activity on the various classical music projects. Most of the serious editors just got fed up and left. I've just been through the list of participants on the main Classical Music project and the number of people who still remain on Wikipedia (not necessarily working on music articles) is down to 120, about half the former number of active editors.

Regarding the Composers Project hidden text, this was introduced at a point when a user was adding large numbers of more or less empty boxes to articles, demanding they should be filled by project editors. AFAIK it hasn't been used for a long time. Hidden text is also used by Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, and possibly other projects, as an authority for their boxes, so it wasn't/isn't unique to the Composers Project. N.B. although I'm identified here as an anti-boxer, I do actually create them and add them to articles myself — when they function properly! Kleinzach 01:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Kleinzach's description of cause and affect is misleading. Individual infoboxes have been rejected which fail none of the tests he lists, other than vague and subjective catch-all accusations of "trivia". We've seen editors declare that that they will no longer edit articles on classical music because of the attitude of project members who oppose infoboxes. The "hidden" text about infoboxes has within the last year been referred to as "an instruction that explicitly said that no infobox should be inserted into the article" by someone objecting to their use. A Bot should be requested, to remove all such hidden text. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Re. the canard that trivia in infoboxes is a vague concept: I (and many others) have been referring specifically to minor, incidental facts that are typically not mentioned in the article. (And normally without citations). --Kleinzach 01:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps part of the problem that frustrates you is that anti-disinfoboxers confuse your own position with those disinfoboxers who claim that infoboxes are for illiterates, and only serve to distract from the brilliant prose of a well-crafted lead? Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I've replied before to comments like Johnbod's, if not comments from him, pointing out that the image in artwork infoboxes can be resized, meaning that it need be no smaller than in the same article without an infobox. That said, a smaller image need not be a problem, as users can click through for a much larger image than either in-article version. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

And I'm sure I've pointed out before that that (which I'm sure we all know) doesn't solve the problem, let alone the other issues; an infobox at say 375px, which some detailed landscape format images need, just looks ridiculous, & they look far too big even at 300. Johnbod (talk) 01:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not really fair to "blame" that text on the sock; it was added in 2009 by Eusebeus.

Part of what is irritating about that statement is that it asserts a unanimity that was not present in the cited discussions. That discussion did not conclude that infoboxes were inappropriate. It actually concluded that WikiProject Composers did not have the right to say that "infoboxes are not appropriate". In fact, they no longer say this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes says that they are not prohibited and may be added if there is a consensus at the individual article to do so.

However, most of the FAs listed on the project's page contain similar hidden text asserting a prohibition, or at least advertising their dislike. Perhaps if you asked at WT:HIDDEN, someone there would know how to search for such text to discover the extent of it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

This is indeed a perennial problem. It's time the community grasped the nettle, and dealt with it, once and for all. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Already looking into it. And no, This isn't a nettle-weed that needs to be uprooted. This is a complicated selection of problems that needs to be addressed delicately and slowly. There are issues with infoboxes, and issues with civility/courtesy/psychology. Forcing things to a head, will just result in unhappy writers, and a slower growth for Wikipedia. please Andy, re-read my statement above. (Please re-read my statement above? I wrote it with you in mind, throughout. I've been following this dispute for years, and it's destroying my will to participate in this project. I'm on your "side" (pro-infobox, pro-metadata, pro-summary-forms), but your methods/tactics/word-choices are killing us. You are the crux of this issue.) –Quiddity (talk) 09:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but while you claim to be "on my side", you've frequently misunderstood or misrepresented my position. Your attempt here to personalise the debate is also inappropriate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Preventing info-boxes is a losing battle - there is a project dedicated to adding them let alone hordes of editors that do nothing but add them to articles. I see on many occasions were boxes are not need - but see them added - no way editors can keep up with all the box additions being made.Moxy (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Archiving reversion

My archiving of discussions which ended on 8 March and 16 March have been reverted. [1] and [2]. In view of the fact that the discussions are more than two months old, archiving should be uncontroversial, however this appears to be related to a personal attack on my talk page by the same individual [3]. (As always, I observe WP:1RR and will not make any further reversions.) --Kleinzach 10:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The only recent personal attack on your talk page is the one you made. We have a bot that archives this page. Please leave it to do its job. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Discussions were not being archived. That's why I archived them. --Kleinzach 10:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

They were being archived after 90 days as the note at the top of this page said. You'll note that I have revised that to 30 days; other than the figure, that note remains unchanged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Reverting a manual archiving of contributions older than 2 months and weighing in at >220,000 bytes seems to be rather pointy, not to mention making it possibly difficult for some readers to access this discussion. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

They were reverted, as stated, because that was the bot's job; Andy adjusted the bot's archiving frequency in response to Kleinzach's concern that it seemed to be taking a long to for archiving to happen. Did that not address everyone's concerns? Where do you hope this discussion will go? Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I am hoping that the systematic reversion of my edits will stop. I'm losing count, but I think the two above were the 7th and 8th of the current series. --Kleinzach 03:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

In this particular case, the archiving is going to happen. If you've got other issues with Andy, I'm sure there are better places to deal with it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Automated archiving has now happened. Manually archiving can disrupt the bot's work. The allegation of systematic reverting is, of course, bogus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Definition needed

The article's title is "Infoboxes," but the definition is for an "Infobox template". Nowhere is the simple term "infobox" defined. It's not clear if an infobox may be created by any other means than by a template. Frappyjohn (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

We had a definition, but I've rewritten the lede to include it in the first sentence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete year ranges

I brought this up at Template talk:Infobox television awhile ago, but no response. There are a few infoboxes for TV shows that have "(2000–)". The en dash is supposed to mean current or continuing (ambiguous in itself). Is this ever acceptable? It seems to me that it's grammatically incorrect to not have the dash followed by another year or "present". Also, is making parentheticals < small > a good thing or not? --Musdan77 (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Recommendations for multiple infoboxes

Some articles benefit from having two infoboxes, usually at the top of the article. Examples: ICO (file format), Opus (audio format), Shooting of Trayvon Martin. It would be useful to have some recommendations as to when this is allowed or encouraged/discouraged, especially below the top of the article. X-Fi6 (talk) 03:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC on icons in Infoboxes

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#RfC on infobox images for details and to provide feedback. Thanks. –Quiddity (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization of infobox names

The page says

• Name the template Template:Infobox some subject (some subject should be in the singular and capitalized as per normal usage—see WP:NAME).

Actually, almost all infoboxes use lower case; e.g. {{Infobox school}}, {{Infobox person}}, {{Infobox settlement}}, etc. The only capitalized names are for proper nouns ({{Infobox Swiss town}}, {{Infobox UK place}}). -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes; that is what is meant by "normal usage". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood the sentence. -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem. If you think the wording could be clearer, make suggestions, or boldly edit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Enforcing infobox parameters (or not)?

We all know that infoboxes are neither required nor prohibited. When, they are included in a page, what are the guidelines on what parameters to include or exclude?

I wrote the The End of the Road article (a novel) from top to bottom, and in the end decided to limit the infobox parameters to those that apply to all editions of the book (so no |publisher=, |isbn=, |pages=, or |image= parameters). Another editor reinstated the image and other parameters. We took it to the editor's talk page, and the editor took it to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Novels#The End of the Road by John Barth image debate. Two other editors joined in discussion and have insisted that I include those parameters, as "the infobox information is supposed to familiarize the audience with the original first edition physical form of the book", which was news to me—it doesn't say that on the template's instruction page, and that doesn't seem to be the case with infoboxes for other types of articles.

If the editors of the articles are to be compelled to include parameters they disagree with, I think the MoS should reflect this. If that were the case, and this was clearly spelled out, I would've just skipped having the infobox in the article entirely. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Editors may include whatever parameters they believe are appropriate, and parameters should only be removed if the information is inaccurate or there is a consensus that a piece of information is misleading or otherwise not germane. So put in what you want, but it is probably a violation of the spirit, if not the word, of WP:OWN to make a fuss about accurate information being added to an infobox just because you didn't include it. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 06:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • There's the crux of the issue: the information is accurate for one edition and one edition only. The information I included was accurate for all editions.
    It astounds me how quickly editors are to Assume Bad Faith and hurl WP:OWN at someone who has not even tried to revert the edits they disagree with. Disgreement and discussion is OWNership? How about those who insist I make no changes? Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Infobox inclusion/exclusion tangent (please ignore)

I apologize sincerely for the verbal indescretion on my part that I've stricken above—it appears that it's started an unintended ugly thread on the infobox inclusion/exclusion wars, and you can smell the bile from the first post, with its bad faith accusations and threats to force an infobox on the page no matter what—I want to keep, not remove, the infobox, so let's restrict this to the parameters issue and not get dragged into the black hole of yet another of these acrimonious arguments. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

...and other editors would just add one in. It isn't about you because you don't WP:OWN the article, and you're not "compelled" to do anything except respect the WP:CONSENSUS of other editors. Infoboxes for novel articles that give first edition publication info are standard and consensus-supported. So far, your argument has just been "I don't get why it's important." postdlf (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

My argument was not "I don't get why it's important" (the second time you've accused me of saying such a thing), my argument was that it's outright misleading and unhelpful. Please don't put words in my mouth. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I've always thought it slightly ridiculous that idiotboxes for books force editors to put the first edition details in, regardless of any other potential factors for individual works, and I wholeheartedly support a more generic approach where applicable. You could take the brave step of Pilgrim at Tinker Creek of not having a box: it works perfectly well, without the superfluous and pointless information. I'd also caution against throwing around rather silly accusations of ownership: they are unhelpful, uncivil and will only lead the friction going forward. - SchroCat (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I would not object to the removal of an infobox, but as per accepted guidelines, book articles should have an image of the first edition...GrahamHardy (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat: "You could take the brave step of Pilgrim at Tinker Creek of not having a box"—no, actually, I can't. An admin has threatened its reinstituion if I dared. As I have been "warned", it would likely be interpreted as editwarring; as it was an admin who made the warning, I don't doubt that it would result in my being blocked—even with GrahamHardy's blessing above of the box's removal. That, apparently, is how important presenting these 1st-edition parameters is. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

GrahamHardy: The whole of the guideline is: "Image (prefer 1st edition – where permitted), use bare filename: Example.jpg". There is nothing in that guideline that suggests "using an image" is preferred to "not using an image"; the guideline said to me that 1st edition images are preferred to random later editions, which sounds reasonable to me. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

@Schrocat, what's ridiculous, idiotic, silly, superfluous, and pointless is your insulting attitude. Your were no doubt talking about yourself and your point of view when you said that. You only harmed your own case, no one else's. PumpkinSky talk 23:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

PumpkinSky: This is why I was hoping the conversation would continue outside this subsection, and focus on the parameter issue. Look, another Infobox War! Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, SchroCat is the one that turned this from a rational discussion into a childish name calling den of lower Internet phyla. PumpkinSky talk 02:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

"W-w-well, he started it!" Can we drop this? Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not letting a comment like his go by unnoticed. It was totally uncalled for. PumpkinSky talk 02:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, wonderful! Thank you for committing yourself to totally drowning the discussion in irrelevant horse manure! Never let the infidels take an inch in this Holy Infobox Crusade! Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Pumpkin, you're over-reacting rather badly here - and no-one started name calling before you called me childish and questioning my attitude, so take a step back and try to get a grip please. Read again what I have said. I have said that Curly has a point about not having the first edition parameters. (To expand: how does a first edition isbn or page count enrich the reader, for example?) There are frequently cases when the first edition just isn't important or notable in itself, but that subsequent releases are, and I've always felt we should be flexible to accommodate such cases. In terms of IBs, Wiki is flexible enough to accommodate a range of approaches that will vary widely between the excessively long (Hollywood Squares, and others) to non-existent (Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, and others). Pumpkin, as has already been suggested, "let it go": you've over-reacted to a nothingness here and the discussion should focus on the core question Curly had raised. @Curly, the other option is to go down the route of the {{collapsed infobox section begin}} to put the less meaningful parameters out if site, yet still on the page.it's good compromise, although there are people who will disagree with its use(although I've never seen a clear and compelling argument of why not!) - SchroCat (talk) 06:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I'm one of those people who's driven nuts by collapsed infoboxes/infobox sections. All I want is a nice litle box to encapsulate that handful of information the majority of readers want to see to orient them to the subject—in this case, the title, author, year, country, and language of the book. All that's in the lead, and I'm perfectly happy to limit it to the lead if the only other option is an infodump that expands halfway down the page, that lets me know that this novel, too is in the 813 section—in other words, this novel, too, is separated out from the regular stacks into the fiction section!.

Actually, there were two issues I wanted to deal with wrt this article's infobox—one was eliminating the infodump parameters, and the other was getting rid of a Fair Use image that was not actually discussed anywhere in the article. That's just gratuitous, and I don't think it's a good idea to load up "free content" Wikipedia articles with stuff like this unless it aids the understanding of the article—which the included book cover does not at all. The fact that the image was used in the infobox is incidental. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem about the collapsing IB: they are not to everyone's taste, but do manage to take the sting out of an excessive use of parameters. I am also in the "less if more" school for IBs: one of their curses is that people absolutely insist on filling in each and every peramter to the n^th degree, even to the point when it becomes an overly-bloated nonsense which distorts the content of the article. I'm always bemused by people insisting on inserting an ISBN for books published pre 1965; or the inclusion of a Dewey decimal number (not all libraries use DD, including the British Library and the LoC); or the inclusion of the LoC number for a UK book, etc. None of this data-dumping does anything but provide a large, bloated IB for an article, which somehow both provides information, but also distorts it and detracts readers from true understanding. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It appears to me the name calling started with using a five letter prefix idiotboxes in place of the four letter infoboxes. Unnecessary, the wrong term and more work (gotta type the extra letter). It's the classic low level innuendo Wikipedia insult -- implying that either readers who find them useful or the editors than insert them are idiots, but comes with the plausible deniability -- I didn't call anyone an idiot -- that allows the author of the comment to escape sanctions. Recommend striking and replacing with proper boring term and disengaging from PumpkinSky. NE Ent 11:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Please focus on the question of the perameters. I've asked Pumpkin to do the same and I suggest it would be more constructive if you could also do likewise: there is nothing else to disengage from. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, SchroCat was less than civil, but he also managed to contribute something of substance to the discussion. Could the Manners Police at least manage to contribute something while berating the bad little editor? Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Multiple infoboxes

Is there a policy, consensus, or recommendation on whether it is appropriate to use more than one infobox in an article?

Specifically, I am wondering whether Fortress of Luxembourg, which currently has "Infobox military installation", should additionally use "Infobox historic site", since it is/was both a military installation, and a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

Thanks Dr Gangrene (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Is it not possible to embed the latter as a "module" in the former? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

And how ... would one do that? Dr Gangrene (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

@Dr Gangrene: for a world heritage site, you can use {{Infobox World Heritage Site}} and insert it in the {{Infobox military installation}} in Fortress of Luxembourg, like this. Frietjes (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cleanup-infobox

Template:Cleanup-infobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DrKiernan (talk) 11:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)