This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The purpose of Wikipedia is not to list info without any discrimination. The infobox is for selected info, not all available info, which Wikidata is for. It's rarely meaningful to fill every field in an infobox even if there exist parameters for it on WD. I don't mind a WD infobox as a sloppy, temporary solution in stub articles, but it's never an improvement to use them to replace a manually written infobox. Smetanahue (talk) 07:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is one opinion, but it is not the only one. You can customize the Wikidata-generated infobox with "suppressfields" to show fewer items if desired, or to customize fields so they don't just take what is coming from Wikidata. So the point you make about "without any discrimination" isn't really the problem, because the mechanism exists. You can in fact discriminate, and you're encouraged to do so. Long term, it's unsustainable and undesirable to have all the information about paintings scattered about, replicated, inconsistent and full of gaps when Wikidata can solve these issues. Please refer to Template:Infobox_artwork/wikidata for more. In the meantime, I'll put in an infobox with fields hidden as an example. -- Fuzheado | Talk07:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's more complicated than just using a manual infobox, especially if the manual infobox already is in place. It's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Smetanahue (talk) 08:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fuzheado: Now the infobox contains even more undesirable parameters. Succession order for example is in itself controversial in infoboxes, and completely meaningless when there is a navigational box which fills the same role much better. Even if it was the case that suppression parameters meant less work, which I'm not convinced it is, it's still a backwards and counterintuitive way of working. It makes a lot more sense to write a bunch of parameters with info to include in the infobox, rather than a bunch of parameters with info to exclude. Again, there was nothing that was broken to begin with. Please reconsider this. Smetanahue (talk) 12:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you prefer to write a bunch of parameters with info to include in the infobox, rather than a bunch of parameters with info to exclude, then simply leave out |suppressfields= and set |fetchwikidata=para1, para2, para3, ... paraN where para1, etc. are the names of the fields you want included, and those will be the only ones fetched. It's coded to cater for either way of working (although please note that |suppressfields= takes precedence over all values, both locally-supplied and Wikidata-supplied; while locally-supplied values still take precedence over Wikidata-supplied ones). --RexxS (talk) 01:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's still very contrived compared to just writing the info. It's also inconvenient to have potential content disputes on Wikidata instead of Wikipedia. It's enough distraction to have to learn the culture and politics of just one project. I'll restore the normal infobox - if anyone wants to change anything in it, it'll be a lot easier that way. Smetanahue (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not at all contrived. It's just complying with your view that "It makes a lot more sense to write a bunch of parameters with info to include in the infobox". I don't see any consensus for your reversion. --RexxS (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to point out: navigation boxes don't appear in the mobile view, but the infobox does, so if you want mobile users to be able to see the succession order then it needs to be in the article text or the infobox. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
