Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes: a refutation
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: While not every article needs an infobox,[1] do not be put off adding one by misleading essays. |
The essay Disinfoboxes claims that "Disinfoboxes are infobox templates that add no value to articles". This is very misleading. The value added to articles by infoboxes is inherent and is evident in:
- Providing a quick reference to key facts about the subject, in a format easily accessible to those in a hurry or with limited reading skills;
- Making facts available in a machine-readable format, using microformats and other techniques to emit metadata;
- Allowing data to be more easily exported to, or displayed from, Wikidata.
The essay is often cited as a reason not to add an infobox to an article. This ignores the part which reads "save it by either correcting false information, removing all subjective fields, or adding useful information"
. Of course, such corrections should be made to any part of Wikipedia, and are not infobox-specific.
The essay's bogus claims include:
- If the infobox is longer than a third of the article's body, it is a disinfobox.
- The length of an infobox very much depends on the user's settings (screen and window size, font and font-size, etc.)
- If the infobox contains multiple entries within any identifying field, it is probably a disinfobox.
- Multiple values are appropriate and valid in many "identifying" infobox parameters, such as
|native_name=,|former_name=and|nickname=. Templates such as {{Plainlist}} exist to facilitate their use. - If the infobox contains subjective categories, it is a disinfobox.
- Since infoboxes do not contain categories, the meaning of this statement is unclear. More widely, subjective statements do not belong in Wikipedia anyway; this is again not an infobox-specific issue.
Examples
[edit]Ron Richardson | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Born | Ronald E. Richardson January 27, 1952 |
| Died | April 5, 1995 (aged 43) Bronxville, New York, USA |
| Occupations |
|
| Years active | 1970s-1994 |
| Awards | |
Laura Esterman | |
|---|---|
| Born | April 12, 1945 |
| Occupation(s) | Film, television and radio actress |
| Awards | |
Ponte Vecchio | |
|---|---|
 View of the Ponte Vecchio from above | |
| Coordinates | 43°46′4.76″N 11°15′11.49″E / 43.7679889°N 11.2531917°E |
| Crosses | Arno River |
| Locale | Florence, Italy |
| Characteristics | |
| Design | Closed-spandrel segmental stone arch bridge |
| Width | 32 metres (105 ft) |
| Longest span | 30 metres (98 ft) |
| Location | |
 | |
All three of the example infoboxes given in the essay no longer reflect the actual state of the articles to which they belong. At the time of writing, they appear as shown here.[2] Their value is clear.