Template talk:Infobox curler

Coach Label

This is my petition for a coach label to be added to the curlers infobox. Thoughts? Krazytea(talk) 05:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no problems with it. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

So if we add the coach label under the alternate title, will that alter ALL of the other information below it in every other infobox or as long as it is the right title it will be fine? Krazytea(talk) 19:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it will be fine. I usually use trial and error for these things, personally. -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Recent improvements reverted

This infobox includes lots of useful information about the player it describes - but doesn't tell readers that the person is a curler! That's pretty fundamental. Accordingly, I recently added a configurable |role= parameter, displayed as a subheader, defaulting to the content "Curler".

Further, in many cases, such as Wang Fengchun and Pat McCallum, it's not apparent whether the subject is male or female, so I included a gender parameter, displayed as an icon, marked up as an abbreviation. You can see how that looks in the infobox on my user page, which also has |role=Wikimedian.

Unfortunately, the improvements were reverted.

No issues with the changes were raised, neither here nor in the edit summary, but a link was given to an historic, inconclusive discussion where some people did not like the visual appearance of such changes (which of course can be debated). Nothing in that discussion supports a revert here. The only other content of the edit summary was "change needs discussion".

An infobox is supposed to give a quick and convenient summary of key aspects of the subject, and to emit them as machine readable metadata. For curlers, the fact that they are a curler is indisputably a "key aspect"; as is the gender of any person.

Accordingly, the changes I made should be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest putting role further up in the template so it is more intuitive to editors that it is the subheader. Gender, though, is a different issue: as can be seen from that discussion and others, its inclusion in infoboxes lacks consensus. The symbols are not universally understood, while the text-based alternative would be too prominent. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The position of {{{subheader}}}, used by |role= in my code, is fixed in {{infobox}}. It already appears near the top of the infobox, just below the subject's name. The gender symbol is used elsewhere, without complaint. The consensus for its use here is disputed by only you. If not as a symbol, and not as text, how would you propose to display it? How would others like to see it displayed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstand my point regarding role: I'm suggesting putting it higher up in the code, not in the visible template. As to gender, I'm proposing not including it at all. It's not used in the major biographical infoboxes; I'm only aware of its use in the gymnast box, what others include it? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

In my code, |role= is in {{{subheader}}} and is the fourth-highest parameter; after {{{bodyclass}}}, {{{above}}} and {{{aboveclass}}}:

{{Infobox
|bodyclass    = biography vcard
|above        = <includeonly>{{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}</includeonly>
|aboveclass   = fn

| subheader = <span class="role">{{#if:{{{role|}}}|{{{role}}}|[[Curling|Curler]]}}</span>

It would not be appropriate to put it above any of these. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

So looking at the example given in the documentation, the difference between the top bit of the current version and the proposed change looks like this:

Anette Norberg Curler Norberg at the 2010 Winter Olympic Games Born Anette Norberg (1966-11-12) November 12, 1966

Anette Norberg Curler ♀ Norberg at the 2010 Winter Olympic Games Born Anette Norberg (1966-11-12) November 12, 1966

and the additional microformats it emits are marked up with class="role" and class="gender". In my humble opinion the change is an improvement: visually it's not intrusive, but big enough for a reader to learn that Norberg is a curler. Mouse users can hover over the symbol to see that it represents 'female', and screen readers would hear that information from the title parameter. Obviously the extra microformats provide further info for third-parties in a standard format.

As ever, I don't put much weight on the "nobody's done it before" argument - we'd never make any progress if that was applied to every change. For what it's worth, I could tweak the template to read the gender from Wikidata, if desired, so that editors wouldn't have to bother with it. Thoughts? --RexxS (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I love the idea of having the sport right there under the name. As you know, I am not a computer programmer, though having microformats always has made intuitive sense to me. From the access and graphic design standpoints (which is where I have more personal background) It's an elegant design and a great improvement. I see no reason not to implement it. Montanabw^(talk) 19:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

To tell readers high up what an infobox is about is already working for {{infobox opera}} (see Bluthochzeit) and {{infobox Bach composition}} (see BWV 172). It has been tried for people such as Percy Grainger. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, "role" would be fine here if it were more intuitively placed for editors, as it is in infobox opera. "Gender" remains problematic - it's not really elegant, and not all users are both aware of and able to use tooltips. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Anette Norberg
Curler and biathlete ♀
Norberg at the 2010 Winter Olympic Games
Born	Anette Norberg (1966-11-12) November 12, 1966

I think you're misunderstanding, Nikki. The proposed new Infobox curler sets the role to "curler" by default. If it is used in an article for a curler, then the editor needs not add that parameter. I can't think of where, but should the infobox be used in an article where the role should be set to something other than "curler", then the editor can supply a value for the |role= which will then be displayed in place of the default. Here's an example of how it might look - if you examine the wikitext, you'll see that I've placed |role= on the third line, but of course it could go anywhere inside the template. Hope that helps.

As for the accessibility of tooltips, that's really an artefact of how your user agent (browser, I assume) deals with the title attribute. Text-only browsers can display it in place of the symbol; while screen readers will usually be set to read it out. A potential problem exists for readers who need a large zoom to read text, as the tooltip on common browsers doesn't scale. However, they will almost certainly know how to make use of the accessibility feature to provide a screen magnifier that is present in the major operating systems. The only downside I foresee is for readers who are well-sighted, but have difficulty controlling a mouse, as the small symbol may be harder to hover over. --RexxS (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I think perhaps I'm just not explaining myself well. Andy's edit had the "role" parameter appearing under "death place"; I suggest it would be more intuitive for editors attempting to use the template to have it appear after "name". Compare {{infobox opera}}, where the comparable parameter "genre header" is listed immediately after "name".

For the tooltips, my concern was not simply accessibility in terms of how they are handled by adaptive technologies, but rather by less tech-savvy readers. It is not intuitive for those readers that the line under the symbol means you should put your mouse there to understand what the symbol is, and many will either assume the line is part of the symbol or, given the size, not notice the line at all. As placed it seems to follow on from role in a way that doesn't make sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah - it's the documentation that you were concerned about. Sorry I hadn't realised. Anyway, the documentation needs to be tidied up if the change is accepted, as we'll need to make clear that the parameter defaults to "Curler" if omitted. I'd be more than happy to suggest wording for that if we get that far - and I take your point that placing it nearer the top when we give examples would be more intuitive.

The line under the symbol is how your browser (and mine) renders the <abbr>...</abbr> tags because the Wikipedia CSS forces it (it matches the default styling in Firefox and Opera - Chrome and IE don't underline by default). I'm not sure there's much we can do for readers who don't know what their browser is telling them, but I do agree that the small size of the symbol exacerbates it. Part of the problem is that - as you've indicated - we don't use <abbr>...</abbr> much, so readers don't recognise the markup: a bit chicken-&-egg really. It's possible that a better solution would be to just give the gender, rather than abbreviating it: "Female curler", "Male gymnast", etc. --RexxS (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Just on the last line, I recently read that "male" and "female" are biology terms well suited for animals, - we say Index of women scientists articles, for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

But 'woman' and 'man' are nouns: we really prefer an adjective to qualify an occupation like 'curler'. So "man gymnast" is an unusual phrase in English. Just to check: Google gives 12K ghits for "man gymnast" (and that includes 'spider-man gymnast', 'iron man gymnast', 'two man gymnast', etc.), but "male gymnast" shows 89K ghits. Not such a difference as I would expect, but still more than 7 to 1 in favour of 'male' in this context. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I find the need for a gender parameter kind of annoying, but I can live with it. As for male/female, Gerda is correct as to biology, when speaking of humans biologically, it's one thing, when speaking of roles and individuals, men/women is better. For example, at the Olympics, it's "Men's gymnastics" and "Women's gymnastics" - or figure skating, or what have you. But, again, for this, I won't soapbox so long as no one does the horrible "men/females" distinction, which is one of my pet peeves. However, for microformats, the little male/female symbols actually solve the problem of language. (And makes me think of the Artist Formerly Known as Prince). Montanabw^(talk) 19:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, let's not bring classical music infoboxes into this discussion, that is a war zone. Montanabw^(talk) 19:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

"Man curler" and "male curler" and the symbol are all problematic in different ways; that and the "kind of annoying" factor weigh against its inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The metadata argument sways me on that one. I see the value for a small, discreet gender parameter to aid in searches, for example, for women curlers. I would not particularly see the need otherwise, but I DO get it about the data issue Montanabw^(talk) 03:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

You reverted an substantive edit to the structure of a template, because you didn't like the order in which a parameter appeared in the documentation? *boggle*. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Subsection

Comment: I don't see the need for these two new parameters, "role" and "gender." At best, the information they provide is superfluous to an infobox. The infobox is a supplement to the article, and thus does not necessarily need to contain all the details of the person whom the article is about.

The "role" parameter is absolutely unnecessary. It is perfectly clear that every article in which this template is used is about a curler. There is no other descriptor that could go in that parameter. Sure, a person may also be a coach, have a role in a curling association, or have some other occupation, but the fact remains that this person is still a curler. I cannot think of any case in which this template would be used for a non-curler. Speaking outside of the curling world, I would be less opposed to the addition of a "role" parameter if this were a more general template (i.e. covering any athlete), but it's not.

Now, regarding the "gender" parameter: in addition to the aesthetic disadvantages of including a symbol indicating gender in the infobox, the addition of any information about gender in the infobox engenders (pun intended) a whole other conversation which distracts from the main purpose of an infobox. As stated previously and in various places, the gender of a subject whose name may not immediately imply a gender can easily be gleaned from the rest of the article. And, if this is not enough (as it should be), I feel as if the solution of stating "male curler" or "female curler" in the lede is good enough. I don't quite feel that the addition of these parameters for the sake of metadata is a convincing argument, because this information can easily be added in a way which preserves the accepted version of the template (i.e. the version without the "role" and "gender" parameters) while including the information that can be useful to third-parties (or whatever the case may be) in a discreet fashion.

My main argument: I would strongly argue that instead of considering the placement of information about the gender (and, if applicable, role) in the infobox, this information should be placed in the lede. After all, the lede is the face of the article, and thus should be used to convey all of the important information about the subject. Again, the infobox is to supplement the article, and in doing so, the lede. I would also like to note that the use of infoboxes is already a subject of debate, simply due to the fact that they may add no value to the article. There is a danger of including parameters in infoboxes that ends up unnecessarily repeating information that is readily found in the article. The creators of this template, and the WP:CURLING community, have decided and affirmed that the parameters included are useful, in the sense that they either sum up information that is spread throughout the text of the article or provide information that may not be available in the text of the article. Adding any other parameters should be subject to the same type of analysis that validated the addition of the original parameters. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 03:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't follow, because while of course what you said is right (every subject for whom this template is used, will be a curler), a reader who comes to the article for the first time, does NOT know that and should be informed about that first, right after the name. I - as a reader - want to know this key fact first. (An infobox telling me only this fact would be better than none, imo.) See above for examples of infoboxes which already place key fact first, there's also {{infobox orchestra}}, which has it unless the name clearly shows that it is a orchestra. Look at L'arpa festante, would you know at a glance that it is an orchestra? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@Prayerfortheworld: I'm grateful for your comments, although I entirely disagree with them. An infobox is a summary of the key facts of an article, not a supplement to it. It is in the very nature of an infobox that it repeats information in the rest of the article, because that is its job: to collect key facts into one predictable place and present them in a read-at-a-glance format. It also makes its data available to third-parties as microformats and as label-value pairs in a standardised way that facilitates automated reading of the information. If a reader wants a quick overview of who Anette Norberg is, the infobox is where they will look, and we do a disservice to those casual readers by omitting key facts such as that she is a female curler.

I completely reject the notion that we should force readers to scan the lead or the rest of the article just to find one important fact that they wanted to know, when we can collect and present such facts in the infobox. It's not our place to dictate how readers must use our encyclopedia, and - much as we would like them to read our entire article - we should be making it as easy as possible to find the information they want. Such is the nature of an encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 12:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Speaking to the article that you mentioned, the fact that it is an orchestra is present within the first few words in the lede, which, in my opinion, is more than satisfactory. And while I understand your viewpoint, there are those with the opinion that infoboxes such as the one placed in the article you mentioned actually do not contribute anything to the article. I do think they make a fair point. And I will try to speak to some of your other concerns in my reply below.

@RexxS: Though I understand the purpose of the infobox as a means of summarizing information, I believe that it is not meant to distract from the rest of the article. I understand the necessity of including such data in an article, but I disagree with the necessity of its visual display, as I have stated above. Also, speaking from the point of view of the WP:CURLING community, I'd add that the ledes in the articles employing this template is more than sufficient to describe that the subject is a curler of a particular gender.

As to your disagreement with the idea that the infobox should be, at best, a supplement to the article, consider that there can be an article with a lede but no infobox, but there can be no article with an infobox but no lede. The lede is of utmost importance in summarizing the article, and I would argue that it is more important than the infobox in doing this. Of course, this does not take away from the utility of the infobox, but this does mean that the information included in the infobox needs to be managed so that the infobox does not perform duties outside of its own. I would argue that the majority of casual readers consult both the lede and the infobox for information on the subject, since they are the two major sources of summarized information for an article. With this in mind, the goal should be reducing redundancies between the two while still including the content which is necessary in each individual component. The argument here, I feel, is whether the inclusion of these informations, which are present already in the lede, in the infobox is an unnecessary action. I would hold that it is, for the "role" parameter and especially for the "gender" parameter. However, given that consensus among editors is an important part of this encyclopedia, I do believe that more comment, especially from other voices, will prove to be productive in determining whether these additions are necessary. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you should check your premises because I saw at least one article which is more a infobox than anything else, "my" opera house, Daegu Opera House. Such an article translates easily. I came across an orchestra today (but don't remember which), where the fact that it was an orchestra appeared late after translation and pronunciation, - so much easier to see right on top that it's an orchestra. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@Prayerfortheworld:: When we include information, it needs to be seen, otherwise it will never be corrected if wrong. I'm sure that the leads in your articles are a good summary of the article, but infoboxes and leads perform similar yet different functions. If the lead could be considered as a two-minute summary of the article, then the infobox is a twenty-second summary. They are aimed at different audiences, and it is generally agreed that an infobox should normally only contain information that would be appropriate in the lead. There is no valid reason for "reducing redundancies between the two" - what purpose would it serve? What of the reader who just wants to quickly get a piece of key information? Why would we force them to read through the lead or article to find it, when the reader will expect to find all the key information in the infobox? What of the third-party data aggregators that find a name and date of birth, etc. but then don't find the information about whether the subject is male or female, or that they are a curler? Aren't those key pieces of information about the subject as well? It's not as though we're short of server space that requires us to have information in one spot but not another. Finally, lots of stubs and start-class articles have infoboxes but no lead, as they have not yet been developed. Neither element is compulsory, and there is no tension between what is contained in each. --RexxS (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think your argument asserting that readers would be "forced" to read through the lede to find out these pieces of information is compelling. Again, I maintain that these pieces of information are available in the first couple of lines of the lede, and I would argue that the time required to find them is very close to, if not the same as, the time required to read them in the infobox. I feel as if the disagreement is based on differing views of what we think readers readily refer to for information. Yes, the infobox is very helpful, but the infobox does not need to, and should not, include every single piece of information about the subject of the article. The infobox should summarize the facts about the article, and a good summary is one that includes only key facts. Of the two pieces of information being discussed here, I feel as if the "role" parameter may be the only one that could be argued as a key fact to be included in the infobox. However, I must again point out that the role and gender are readily available in the lede. Consider that the first sentence of every single BLP article on Wikipedia is along the lines of "Subject is/was a descriptor etc., etc." (This also extends to non-BLP articles, of course.) Readers definitely recognize this across all articles, even those without infoboxes. So I just don't see how it is crucial that we have this information in the infobox as well. When I look at an infobox, I look for facts about the subject's career and accomplishments, things that could be explained in more detail later in the article but that I may not have time to look at right now. So yes, it saves me time in this sense, but when you talk about information about the role and gender, I don't see how this saves me any significant amount of time.

Regarding articles with infoboxes but no lede, I've yet to see an example, let alone a good one, but I'd be surprised if there were an article with no text accompanying the infobox. That would seem to be a MOS violation, actually, since each article is supposed to have content, at the very least in the form of the lede. (Hence my argument that articles can have ledes but no infoboxes, but not infoboxes but no ledes.) And even this doesn't say very much, since the lack of a lede (which would seem to imply the lack of any content in the article) means that the infobox is the only source of information on that page and must be consulted for information. And regarding the metadata argument, there is definitely a way to include this information in a convenient place without actually having to visually display it in the infobox, and so I don't think this should be a factor in this discussion. As a thought, it would be nice to see how readers use the lede and infobox to find information, since that would shed light on the basis of the disagreement that I highlighted near the beginning of this response. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

In one of the examples given at the top of this section, Pat McCallum, the subject's gender is not indicated in any way in the lede (and the name give no clue). Your claim that "that the role and gender are readily available in the lede" is thus false. No-one has claimed that an infobox needs to or should "include every single piece of information about the subject of the article", so that's a straw man. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec)The same applies at Mari Motohashi, Kelly Scott and Shawn Adams. The article Jill Brothers has no lede, and the subject's gender is not mentioned in the first paragraph; likewise Brad Gushue, Randy Dutiaume, Jeff Stoughton, Scott Pfeifer and Sherry Anderson. (I stopped looking after the first page of "what links here".) Only someone who understands which western names indicate which gender will be able to determine it from these ledes/ opening paras. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We have no way of guaranteeing that the first few lines of any article contains the key facts that should be in the infobox. Have a look at Markku Uusipaavalniemi. Nobody is suggesting that the infobox should "include every single piece of information about the subject of the article", so we clearly agree on that. It costs almost nothing to have essential information in the infobox as the format is standardised, whereas plenty of biographical articles scatter those key facts throughout the lead (and sometimes only place them in the main text). The lead could be as much as four or five sizable paragraphs in a well developed article and there is simply no downside to collecting the most important data into the infobox. There is also the consideration that placing that data in the infobox makes it much more available for automated readers in ways that no other technique does.

I understand how you use these biographies of curlers, but what of a reader who just came across the name? What gender is Pat McCallum? - the info's not in the lead and 'Pat' doesn't tell us his gender. If we read the current microformats for Pat McCallum, we see "vcard fn = Pat McCallum", "role = curler", "bday = 1969-09-06", "adr = Edmonton, Alberta", "org = Charleswood CC". We still don't read whether he's male or female and the fact that he's a curler. I maintain those are key facts and should be included.

It took me just two clicks on 'Random article' to find this: Desmoderus; three clicks later I found Zoltán Dömötör - maybe I was lucky, but those are perfect examples of the huge numbers of articles that have far too little content to have a lead, and the only summary is an infobox. Of course these sort of articles should be expanded, but in the meanwhile, I think it lays to rest the argument that an article has to have no text to be lacking a WP:LEAD. --RexxS (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Given that the state of most curling articles on Wikipedia are in varying degrees of disrepair, it's very easy to point out many examples where the ledes are incomplete, largely as most were written in a non-systematic fashion. But I feel that this method does not address the issue head-on. I would say that given the inconsistency in the ledes across curling articles, my argument is predicated on considering the ideal scenario, where the lede is complete. And again, I express my sincere belief that the argument centered around microformats/metadata should not be a factor, since it should be possible to include them without visually displaying them. My concern is with the infobox itself as viewed by readers, not by third-parties. Regarding the stubs, I think that my argument still holds when considering the first few sentences in articles with no (discernible) lede. Again, this refers back to my point in the first few sentences of this response.

When I consider the course that this discussion is taking, it seems as if my time would be better used in improving curling BLP articles, though I still have reservations about these implementations. As I have stated before, I feel that there is a slight possibility for the addition of the "role" parameter to be a productive addition, though I think that the infobox (and many other BLP infoboxes) did well enough (and can continue to do so) without it. I am very hesitant regarding the use of symbols to display gender. It detracts from the text-based information-supply method of the infobox, and based on a quick skim of the conversation in the subsection below this, it engenders a conversation in itself about implementation and implications, which may in fact render the addition of gender information into the infobox an unproductive one. When considering the problem of unclear gender based on name, the solution overreaches the problem, and in so doing causes more issues, so I hesitate to even consider this as a worthwhile addition. If I must make an opinion on the gender parameter, which I feel I must given that the option that I preferred seems to be a non-option in this discussion, I feel that the use of a qualifier like "male" or "female" will suffice to distinguish genders. I would very much like to see that this discussion take place in WP:INFOBOX, where the discussion will likely be more fruitful, than in this template's talkspace, where, as in this discussion, only a few editors actively participate.

Finally, I would invite you to consider a point made in my initial comment on the importance of the infobox. I consider the infobox to be an invaluable addition to many articles, and speaking from the world of WP:CURLING, I think it is a very useful addition. However, it still remains that the purpose of the infobox is to summarize key points in the article, and is thus a supplement to the article, as it should represent information already present in the article. In discussing this topic, I have realized that there is a greater need to add to curling articles than to fret over the details of what is included in the infobox. The article should be the focus in editing, and I feel as if this discussion draws that focus away by directing too much attention to improving the infobox at the expense of the article's improvement. We should not put more stock in the infobox than we do in the article it describes. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 09:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that your argument is based on the ideal scenario, but as we're a long way from that, you need to address how things actually are. We got there because you previously argued Regarding articles with infoboxes but no lede, I've yet to see an example, let alone a good one. Well now you've seen dozens. You tell us you don't think metadata/microformats should not be a factor, and to justify that you assert that it should be possible to include them without visually displaying them. And yet you offer no means of achieving that. How would it help to copy all of the information available in the infobox to somewhere else in the article, add the microformats, and then hide it? The infobox has exactly the right structure for metadata (label-value pairs) and the microformats can be hidden inside the template code. Infoboxes are absolutely ideal for containing metadata/microformats and if there were any value in putting them somewhere else, it would have been done by now. My concern is how the infobox is viewed by all of the people who use or re-use our content. We don't want to take the elitist view that we're only writing for the readers who who are already deeply interested in the subject and will want to read every bit of our brilliant prose. The articles referred to above show clearly that you can't count on the first few sentences to give you the key facts, so I think your argument definitely doesn't hold.

I would obviously agree that your time would be better spent on improving the curling BLPs; as would mine in improving the templates used in those BLPs, but you're objecting to my proposed improvements, so we have to have a debate to try to reach consensus based on who brings forward the most compelling arguments. I do accept what you say about symbols; they are inferior in my humble opinion to plain text, but there is a tension between being obtrusive and being self-explanatory. Infoboxes unfortunately exacerbate that tension by reason of trying to get information into as small a space as possible. The problem with discussions at WP:INFOBOX is that any consensus reached at a WikiProject can be ignored at the individual page level, so we'd end up having the same discussion all over again. At least we can discuss concrete issues here. I'd be quite happy to generalise later when we we've reached some agreement in this case that I can refer to as a real example.

I agree the article is more important than the infobox and I wish you well in working on curling articles. Nevertheless your comments here are valuable and time spent in debate will inevitably help all of us as we do our best to improve the encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

tl;dr - but thank you for providing a further reason to adopt these changes: they provide a service to our readers, in articles "where the ledes are incomplete". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I find your response quite disrespectful. I state that there are regrettably many articles with incomplete ledes, and that they should be improved so that the ledes are no longer incomplete, but you use this and say that because I mention that ledes are incomplete, the infoboxes need to be improved. You have intentionally read my comment out of context , and furthermore, you flippantly suggest that my responses are not worth reading. This sort of response is not at all conducive to a positive discussion atmosphere. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 05:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I apologise if I gave the false impression that I was being flippant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Gender

@Nikkimaria: I thought we'd more or said all there was, but I'm quite content to pick up on the gender part if you have more to contribute. May I assume that the present implementation of the |role= parameter is one you could live with? I think I was weighing the unobtrusiveness of the symbol against the simplicity of plain text like "Female curler" and you were concerned about the placement of the gender symbol after the role, along with a concern that both the text and symbols were problematic. I'm not sure what the problem was that you found with "Male/Female curler", so perhaps you could expand on that? I should add that I agree with MontanaBW that the provision of the extra microformat data is an added advantage that I wouldn't dismiss lightly. --RexxS (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

It was Gerda who pointed out the "biological" issue wrt male/female; while I personally don't have a problem with that phrasing, I have seen enough people in various contexts object to it that I think we should be sensitive to that concern. I agree that "man curler" just sounds odd in English. I think I've pointed out several issues with the symbols above, but I can expand on that if needed. All three possibilities also present challenges when it comes to the potential implementation of an "other" value: how would that be represented? While we might be able to omit it temporarily, that's not a permanent solution.

There is a fourth possibility as yet undiscussed: make it a non-displaying parameter, and/or have it place the article into a relevant category. This does make it slightly less likely that an error would be corrected, but avoids the issues of obtrusiveness, confusion, etc discussed above. Incidentally, if an error were corrected here, would the correction be propagated to Wikidata without someone having to notice the correction here?

If we do end up going with the symbol despite all the above, please move it away from "role". "Man" or "female" makes sense paired with "curler"; the symbol doesn't. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the "biology" thing is related to one of my pet peeves, particularly calling women "females" while simultaneously men are called "men." Women are people too. The point that I care about is merely that we stay consistent; if biology is under discussion, we say male/female; if it's sports, we say men/women or ladies/gentlemen or boys/girls or whatever. In this case, using the male/female symbols avoids the whole "what word to use" issue, plus they are small and discreet symbols that don't clutter the box. As to WHERE they go, I probably DGAF. The ability to suppress the visibility of the parameter - as an option - is a good idea (thinking of the Chelsea Manning example, if it becomes an editing dispute, it can just not be used in those contexts). (Also, Nikki, if Gerda is under a one comment restriction and therefore cannot defend or explain her actions because of it, I suspect you are the last person who should attempt to do so for her.) Montanabw^(talk) 03:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to hide a value for Chelsea Manning; if there's consensus (or if there are reliable sources), it should be displayed; if there isn't consensus/ sourcing, the value should not be included in any form. More generally, hiding data is harmful; it defeats the primary purpose of informing our readers in a succinct manner; and it leads to errors not being corrected because people do not know that they are there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that symbols reduce clutter, but that's not the only issue at play here. What symbol would you use for "other", and how likely is it that many would recognize that symbol? Even the man/woman symbols are not understood by all. Even following her restrictions Gerda is permitted to comment here; if she wishes to correct my interpretation of her comment she is free to do so. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: This is now the third time I have answered this question from you: The case of "other" values can certainly be catered for; the code to do so is already in {{Infobox user}}, for example." Again: please read the replies given, rather than restating your questions. I also asked you, twice already "In order that we can be sure we're not being pointlessly distracted by solely-hypothetical edge cases, please can you name a curler, using this infobox, for whom this is pertinent?", which you have again ignored. Once again please answer that now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Andy, but that doesn't actually answer my question. The user infobox isn't worth arguing over since it should appear only in userspace, but its implementation would not pass muster in mainspace. I want to know whether anyone can propose one that would, that would still be both neutral and understandable. As to your question, are you suggesting that the articles currently using the template are the only ones that ever will? The "other" curler is certainly not hypothetical. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that you argue about it, I'm suggesting that you look at it, as it contains the answer to the question you have asked, repeatedly, here. I note that you give no example of an article using this infobox, where the "other" gender would apply. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happy to propose as a possible implementation that we use something like the code found in {{Infobox user}} to cater for 'other' gender:

• |other|o=&nbsp;{{abbr|1=<span style="line-height: 12px;">[[File:Gendersign.svg|x12px|link=]]</span>|2=other|class=gender}}
• 

How would that suit as a possible way forward? It's not a commonly recognised symbol, but it doesn't seem to be catering for a common case here. --RexxS (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

As I told Andy, that is in no way an acceptable implementation for mainspace. It's not commonly recognized, but the tooltip explains it only as "other" - "other what?", ask those who don't recognize it. Ideally we would want the tooltip to be customizable to the situation. Furthermore, that particular symbol is used almost exclusively (at least in North America, not sure about elsewhere) for transgendered people, but that's not the only group encompassed by "other", and those excluded by the symbol would quite rightly be offended at receiving it. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertion that "it is in no way an acceptable implementation for mainspace". It's not constructive to demand an example and then simply reject it. Are you sure you're in the business of seeking consensus, or just stonewalling something you simply don't like? It's easy to change the title attribute to "other gender" - use |2=other gender. I can see there is a potential problem if your part of the world has different conventions, so perhaps you can suggest symbols that would have inoffensive meanings. Do you feel we need to define more cases? In any case, at present the template wouldn't display anything that wasn't simply male or female. Does your objection still remain to that? Or are you going to insist on waiting until we have an implementation for all the possible cases that we haven't even shown a need for yet? --RexxS (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is constructive to explain why a proposal is flawed, as this one is. If I knew of such an inclusive and neutral symbol that might be a solution, but unfortunately I don't, and reviewing the literature it seems that the non-inclusive meaning for this particular symbol is common elsewhere in the world as well. And yes, as I have already noted, the "other" case is but one of the problems with the symbol approach. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed explanations of flaws are constructive. Dismissive comments like "it is in no way an acceptable implementation for mainspace" are destructive and you would do well to stick to points that move us forward instead. I could devise further switches to cater for 'transgender' and the other couple of values that exist in Wikidats d:Property:P21. Optionally I could build in the 'genderqueer' value to be the catch-all alternative, but I'm not sure that the term has gained widespread recognition yet. Presumably if we were to move to reading the property from Wikidata, then plain text would be preferable to symbols for display - to allow for future expansion and because recognition of symbols lags behind terminology. --RexxS (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I explained in detail why the proposed implementation is not acceptable for mainspace; actually, I had said before you formally proposed it. So now we are back to the earlier unresolved discussion of whether to use text or symbols. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, in reply to you raising the point previously, The case of "other" values can certainly be catered for; the code to do so is already in {{Infobox user}}, for example." Please read the replies given, rather than restating your questions. I also asked you "In order that we can be sure we're not being pointlessly distracted by solely-hypothetical edge cases, please can you name a curler, using this infobox, for whom this is pertinent?", which you also appear to have overlooked. perhaps you could answer that now? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata

Making use of Wikidata to populate some of the parameters of this infobox could facilitate jobs like adding additional parameters. A current example is that of adding the gender parameter (per discussion above). I've created a sandbox-type version at Template:Infobox curler/Wikidata that behaves identically to Template:Infobox curler except that:

• If the |gender= parameter is omitted, its value is fetched from Wikidata.
• Supplying any value, including blank, to |gender= will use that value and no call will be made to Wikidata.

At present only 'male', 'm', 'female', 'f' will produce any display or metadata, so this can be suppressed or set to another viable gender value (although other genders do not currently display).

That would allow articles to enable this parameter for the the common cases of 'male' or 'female' without editors or bots having to go through all 600+ transclusions. In cases of other gender, editors can simply override the value fetched from Wikidata by supplying a |gender= parameter locally. When Wikidata has no entry, editors would need to create that entry eventually, but the template degrades gracefully by displaying nothing when no Wikidata entry exists for that article.

The Wikidata-aware template may be tested by changing {{Infobox curler to {{Infobox curler/Wikidata in an article like Sandra Schmirler (more articles at 'What links here'), and previewing the result. Please don't save - this is only for discussion at present. I'd be grateful to hear any thoughts on the possibility of amending this template to include Wikidata - infoboxes that do this already are in Category:Templates using data from Wikidata if anyone wants to see other implementations. --RexxS (talk) 12:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, RexxS. We should implement this further improvement as soon as possible, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

While discussion is ongoing about if and how to implement a gender parameter this is probably premature, but as a general point we should be very careful about silently drawing data from Wikidata, as it can make it difficult for editors to work out where the information is coming from and how to change or omit it. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

What is it you don't understand? Whatever data is entered on Wikipedia overwrites Wikidata, - an editor doesn't have to know where data is coming from but can simply put something in, - only if not something from Wikidata is taken. Elegant! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be in a minority of one regarding the display of a gender parameter. Sourcing from Wikidata will be explained in the template documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, Nikki, but we have consensus to make careful use of Wikidata in infoboxes - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikidata Phase 2 contains a good debate of the issues. The problems of editors not seeing immediately where data is coming from is not confined to infoboxes, of course, as any template may display fixed text ("baked in" to the template, if you will) and the onus falls on the template maintainers to ensure that the documentation is as clear as possible. On the other hand, I don't believe we should have to pander to editors who fail to read the documentation, when the answers to their questions are clear from the documentation. I am sensitive to Risker's concern that editors who are very familiar with templates may have difficulty in writing such documentation, which is why I always appreciate other editors' comments on my efforts.

In this case, I only make the proposal that we should consider the use of Wikidata to avoid the need for 600+ manual updates to articles. The sandbox version at Template:Infobox curler/Wikidata exists to show proof-of-concept, so that interested editors can see how we might use Wikidata, and I believe that taking a cautious step forward is in line with both the letter and spirit of the conclusions of the RfC. --RexxS (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

So long as we can correct what is incorrect by putting in parameters manually (thinking of Chelsea Manning as an example), I don't see any concern; anything that makes it easier for the content editor to use an infobox template that is comprehensive. I am one of the people who do not understand the underlying programming language very well, do rely on good structure and technical design by others, and from there am prone to just copy and paste what is in a template with decent instructions. The more I can just input basic info, the happier I am. Montanabw^(talk) 20:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Usually even in a template it's fairly clear where the text is coming from; however, if you're editing the proposed infobox in an article, the parameter would only appear if it weren't being drawn from Wikidata - in other words, the source is less visible than in an ordinary local template. Also, it should always be possible for editors at a particular page to omit such a parameter, whether provided locally or by Wikidata, if there is a reason for them to do so. There is also the issue of appropriate treatment of "other" values. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

RexxS wrote above: "Supplying any value, including blank, to |gender= will use that value and no call will be made to Wikidata.". The case of "other" values can certainly be catered for; the code to do so is already in {{Infobox user}}, for example. In order that we can be sure we're not being pointlessly distracted by solely-hypothetical edge cases, please can you name a curler, using this infobox, for whom this is pertinent? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Nikkimaria wrote: "Also, it should always be possible for editors at a particular page to omit such a parameter"

I'm disappointed, Nikki, that you weren't able to understand me when I stated above:

• Supplying any value, including blank, to |gender= will use that value and no call will be made to Wikidata.

I don't know how else I can put it so that you can understand. If an editor writes |gender=, i.e. gives it a blank value, nothing is fetched from Wikidata. The value for gender is then blank, and nothing is displayed. The local value always supersedes any Wikidata. How else would you like me to make it work?

As for other genders, they can be supplied, but at present will display nothing (just like blank) - which is what I was hoping could be gleaned from:

• At present only 'male', 'm', 'female', 'f' will produce any display or metadata, so this can be suppressed or set to another viable gender value (although other genders do not currently display).

Please edit the documentation to make it clearer if you can.

I'd be happy to suggest an implementation of some scheme for other genders at a later date, but I think this small step is sufficient to debate for now. --RexxS (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you saw fit to edit-war on the template when it is clear from the discussion above that we haven't yet reached agreement on how to implement the display of this parameter, so I suppose that's even. Again, until we figure that out - and that will have a significant impact on this conversation - you're getting ahead of yourself. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Well my two reverts are pretty small fry compared with your four, aren't they? You need to learn to debate your controversial edits, not simply demand that everything you don't like has to be discussed beforehand to get your permission. You never even edited this template before your first revert of Andy and you need to quit the stalking. Nevertheless if you'd like to engage in constructive debate on the proposed changes beyond "you didn't discuss this first" and "I don't like the look of that", I'd be happy to work with you to seek agreement on how to implement the display of this parameter. I'd much rather move forward with every interested party on board, but I'm not prepared to let a blocking !vote prevent progress on our encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

We were in the process of discussing Andy's controversial edit, per that whole BRD thing. We were engaged in constructive debate above, involving arguments beyond "you didn't discuss this first". We didn't get to finish seeking agreement on how to implement it. As already noted, we should conclude that discussion so we can knowledgeably discuss how the implementation impacts the use of Wikidata. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Nikki, an edit is not "controversial" if it was made PRIOR to the controversy being created. Montanabw^(talk) 23:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, Nikki, I accept what you say about not having concluded the discussion. I've started a new section above to try to move forward. --RexxS (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the part of WP:BRD which says "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring". Not to mention "BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once". And "Do not continue to revert, which is the beginning of edit-warring". And "When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary". And "BRD is a way for editors who have a good grasp of a subject to more rapidly engage discussion". And "BRD is not a policy, though it is an oft-cited essay. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow". And "In the edit summary of your revert, include a link to WP:BRD" (emphasis in original). And "BRD is not for reverting changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect your preferred version or ideas". And "Try to avoid reverting a revert yourself". And "There is, consequently, no requirement that "the consensus version" or "the long-standing version" or any other version of the page be visible during discussion". And "If you do not listen and do not try to find consensus, you are wasting everyone's time". And "Do not edit war. The BRD cycle does not contain another "R" after the "D"." (emphasis in original). I trust that that's now clear. And stop stalking my edits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

You know, Nikki, if you are stalking Andy's edits looking for a "gotcha," I really think you should stop doing that and confine yourself to things where you actually care, as opposed to playing cop, detective, judge, jury and executioner. This is not one of your most endearing traits. Montanabw^(talk) 23:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Pan Continental Curling Championships

I tried adding it as a thing that could appear on the appearances list of the Infobox, but it didn't work, can someone add it, since it replaced the Pacific-Asia Curling Championships please and thank you! Edwyth (talk) 11:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I tried as well, and it appears that the only way to get it to work is to put it at the bottom of the infobox or put it bellow the Asia-Pacific, but then you'd have to edit every article that currently has this template. I chose to avoid the matter. Maybe someone with a bot can enable a script or something.-- Earl Andrew - talk 14:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Earl Andrew: it's a little clumsy, but I got it to work! Satsuki Fujisawa now to figure out how to create a template for the PCCC! Edwyth (talk) 03:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Template Made! (2022) Edwyth (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

World Wheelchair Mixed Doubles, Junior, and Senior Championships Added to Template

Anything else I should add while I am working on this! Edwyth (talk) 08:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)