Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes/Archive 2

Bug on a template

I don't know where else to report this, but there is a bug on a template, {{Infobox religious building}} that needs fixing. Basically it is adding a - to the upper left of the pages it is on, see the template's talkpage for other descriptions of this bug and any of the pages the template is used on to see the bug. Thanks in advance, D. Recorder 05:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. –Pomte 05:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks, D. Recorder 05:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for assistance on Template:Infobox book

Is there a clean/simple way to make the ISBN field on infobox book work? There was some discussion about it a couple of months ago on the talk page there, but no clean way presented itself right off, short of saying ISBN again - ie, ISBN ISBN XXXXXXXXX. Thoughts? MrZaius^talk 10:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

References in infoboxes?

I wanted to seek clarification if it is an acceptable practice to include references in infoboxes? See the infoboxes at Ashlee Simpson and Benazir Bhutto for a couple of examples. My view is that including references causes unnecessary clutter and which can be better addressed in articlespace rather than in the infobox. Am I correct? Ekantik ^talk 20:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Repetition of information

Since Infoboxes are often made by condensing information spelled out in the article, I was wondering what the policy or consensus on dealing with the repetition it creates is. For example, what to do with External Links sections that merely link to the subject's official Web site when the Infobox already contains a link. If we are tallying, my opinion is that we should allow repetition if the article is short, and not otherwise.--Adoniscik (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Gaps in list on main page

The list of templates on the MOS (infoboxes) page seems very incomplete. Infobxes I've come across recently which don't seem to be in it include: {{Infobox religious building}}, {{Parish church}} (and {{Infobox church2}} which had various deprecated predecessors like {{Infobox Church}}), {{Infobox Theatre}}, and {{Infobox Hiking trail}}. Would someone like to add them? Or is the list not supposed to be comprehensive? Thanks. PamD (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, after a fruitless search I came on here to mention {{Infobox Person}} is missing. People may quite rightly assume that a template missing from the list has been made inactive and not to be used - I almost did. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 09:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Samba School

Can somebody create a template infobox#samba school? --Nadir D Steinmetz 13:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Actor

A discussion is taking place at Template talk:Infobox actor#Nationality about adding a Nationality parameter to the infobox. Your input would be greatly appreciated. --_pete 20:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Project_Runway_contestant

This template has little leway in adding parameters, is there a way to change that or should I switch to a more basic template like Infobox person? Benjiboi 20:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Default infobox styling

A while back I reforged {{infobox}} as a general-purpose infobox metatemplate, and now that it's starting to see more widespread usage there's a discussion underway about what default styling should be used. I set the original defaults based directly off of the default styles used in {{Navbox}}, since I presume they've undergone a very extensive debate and because I personally find them quite useful. However, there are a couple of editors who've requested that the default infobox to be colorless. I'm canvassing here for more input into the discussion over at Template talk:Infobox. Bryan Derksen (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Lists of infoboxes

Suggestion to Merge the 3 manually-created lists of infoboxes, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes#Lists of infoboxes. Either to one of the 3 locations, or just deprecate them all in favor of the category. Input there appreciated. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Wales

Hello page,

Just wondered if watchers here could pass comment at the proposals for a coloured infobox at Talk:Wales --Jza84 |  Talk  12:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Country styled

Template:Infobox Country styled has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — --Jza84 |  Talk  11:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Here's a Noodle-Baker

The argument is as follows: do observational details outweigh citation? The argument posed by the anonymous editor is that the nom de guerre 'Scarlet Pimpernel' desperately needs to be in the infobox all by itself, since he saw it in the credits of the film, Fitna. Currently, the article the credit as 'Scarlet Productions.' The anon seeks to have the word 'Production' removed fromt he infobox.

He rejects any compromise ("Scarlet Pimpernel" Productions being the most reasonable) that notes the existence of the citation that identifies the alias as a production company. For lack of ambiguity's sake, it seem important - not to mention encyclopedic - to note that 'Scarlet Pimpernel' in the infobox is not an individual, or a real name - we have reliable citation that specifically identifies that it is not, but rather a pseudonym to protect the actual production company, which goes by another name. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This question is probably better addressed by the WP:V people. The infobox aspect is this: it should match whatever the article says.

To be slightly more helpful: Can the anon provide you with a screen shot, or are we trusting some distant recollection? WP:V is not an optional policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've actually seen the movie as well (its free to view online, or was), and it does not SP without the production company clarifier. I don't mind taking the discussion to V; I brought it here with the understanding that it had more to do with some infobox guidelines that I wasn't immediately aware of. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record... This has been discussed ad nausium at WP:RSN (see: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Movie Credits in the InfoBox). There is a degree of forum shopping going on here, so please familiarize yourselves with that debate before you give a definitive answer to this question. I also have to note that both Arcayne and other editors have been engaging in edit wars over this for quite a while at the article. Finally, if the clear consensus at RSN is contrary to consensus here at MOS, please let us know (it is important that those who answer policy and guideline questions in different forums are in sync and not contradicting each other). Thanks Blueboar (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

With respect to Blueboar, my question was posed here to discover if there were special criteria for what could be listed in an infobox and what could not, not as forum-shopping. As the Lead is an overview/summary of the article, it was my understanding that the infobox represented an even briefer summarization of the article. As the article text references Scarlet Pimpernel as a pseudonym, I wanted to know if my assumption about infoboxes was in fact accurate. Even though the matter has since been resolved, I would still like confirmation of my correct interpretation or an explanation as to how it is incorrect. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, there has been a tendency on style guidelines talk pages, especially recently, to try to get people to discuss stuff that arguably fits in other categories (such as NPOV) somewhere else first, because those are the kinds of arguments that wind up going on forever if we try to sort them out on a style guidelines page ... it gets all confused. It also makes a huge amount of work for those of us trying to come up with monthly summaries for the benefit of article reviewers. I don't know if this is one of those cases, but I've noticed that Blueboar is rarely wrong about anything :) Please consider what he's saying. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Image size

Is the 300px size for infobox images a suggestion or a standard? I've had a problem with another editor repeatedly resizing an infobox image. When I replaced the image with one that is not a close up, the image size was cut down again to 150px. Finally, I cited and linked the manual of style and was told that it's only a "suggestion". The article involved is Chocolate chip cookie and I'd like to find out if I'm mistaken about my understanding of infobox image sizes. Thanks Shinerunner (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Default thumbnail size (180px) is a good minimum. Anything different is debatable. Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Displayed_image_size and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images and Wikipedia:Accessibility#Images are the relevant policies/guidelines. Making it smaller than the infobox's width, is the only certain restriction. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reponse and the cited information. I really didn't want an edit war over a big cookie! Shinerunner (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone Please Make me an infobox???

I will give you the details if you are up for it. just leave message me or whatever thanks RorikRäikkönen (talk) 06:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Infobox discussion at WP:EAR

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Move to Village Pump

Please continue this discussion here at the Village Pump. All text below has been copied there. Sswonk (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Original Posts

EXAMPLES of what is being discussed: Ponte Vecchio and Cellini Salt Cellar - Hidden infoboxes.

Watchers of this page might be interested in this discussion. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. And rather than pipe the link secretively, let me add that it's a discussion of a resolution of the infobox issues, one that is meant to offer an elegant display, which will not compete with and crowd encyclopedia text. An example may currently be seen at Ponte Vecchio, formerly an infobox sorepoint: see Talk:Ponte Vecchio.--Wetman (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have been pointed here for discussion of this issue. - Denimadept (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Wetman has come up with a brilliant solution to the dreaded infobox, unfortunately, Ponte Vecchio has been reverted back and you can no longer see his idea and the beautiful image of the medieval bridge is again over shadowed by the box. - Epousesquecido (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If they really want to see his ugly condensed version of the infobox on that bridge, they can check the article history. I didn't mind him hiding it so much as I did his (or someone's) reducing the content and the format. - Denimadept (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Denim, would you like to pick a forum and stick to it? I'm happy to discuss all this at length wherever you like, but may we simply refer people to one venue rather than fragment it? Cheers --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

We've been told to take it either here or some other place I forget. This seems most sensible to me, and we've already been here, so unless Wetman wants to post his proposal the other place, this seems to be what we've been requested to do. Personally, I'd just as soon drop the issue and leave things alone, but Certain People won't allow that. - Denimadept (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of completeness I will simply repost, more or less, what I said at Editor Assistance:

I think a visible infobox, the contents of which reflects a general sense of restraint, is preferable to a hidden one. Two reasons. First, the casual user will never see the "show" button unless it is conspicuously highlighted. I'm *not* a casual user and I missed the button on both the example pages above. An hide / view preference toggle (or a neon 'show' button) would largely fix that problem, but it wouldn't solve the second, which is that once infoboxes can be hidden as a matter of course, infoboxes will - I guarantee it - begin to accumulate cruft and clutter like your crazy aunt's attic. Every time someone proposes adding yet another stray fact to an infobox, they'll defend it in the same way: "*Someone* might find it useful, and, if you don't like the clutter, then just hide it." The only thing keeping infoboxes remotely sensible now is that we all have to look at them. Let's leave them them as they are.

I said two reasons but really it's three. The third is, too many things on line are buried behind hyperlinks already. We click enough as it is. We should just present the text and let the reader simply take in the page, without having to contemplate how they are intended to *interact* with it. Finally, if an infobox looks cluttered or suffers from too much only marginally useful information, fix the infobox. Don't salt it away like we're ashamed of it. JohnInDC (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with JohnInDC. Especially the statement The only thing keeping infoboxes remotely sensible now is that we all have to look at them. older ≠ wiser 12:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• In regard to the use of the "Facts-At-A-Glance" hidden infobox at Cellini Salt Cellar, I think that is a really poor option. There are only three facts in the hidden infobox; I think we should default to showing information rather than hiding it. If you want the facts to be shown at a glance, the best way to do so is to actually display the infobox rather than require people to click on it to find them. If people don't like the way infoboxes are now, it would be better to improve the infoboxes rather than have them hidden. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• I also oppose hidden infoboxes, for the reasons I gave at WP:EA, and in agreement with those above. (I've added permalinked-diff examples at the top of this thread.) -- Quiddity 17:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Tabbed interface

Joopercoopers has posted a solution test page which answers many concerns. It maintains focus on the text and major images of the article as is desired by many opposed to clutter from infoboxes yet allows for presentation of a variety of formated table structures in a tabbed environment. The major concern I suppose would be the additional clicks that would be required to check facts and vandalism. I support Joopercoopers' method as a solution for the issues raised in this discussion, pending further comments from interested parties. Sswonk (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Joopercoopers' solution is even more elegant than my own.--Wetman (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate the thought and effort that went into it, and agree that it is an improvement over an obscure (and obscuring) Show button, I have two main objections to this latest proposal. The first is both esthetic and practical: The layout (and concept) brings nothing so much to mind as the Windows Control Panel window. And, when you hide so many things behind a so many different buttons, the only way to find out whether any of them are valuable to you is simply to click through to each one - a laborious and time-consuming process. Again I strongly prefer an article that says what it needs to say on a single page that one can read, in its entirety, simply by scrolling. Indeed scrolling is *far* less an imposition on those who dislike infoboxes, than click-previous page, click-previous page, click-previous page, click-previous page is going to be for those who find infoboxes useful. The second objection here is the same as my second objection above, which is that by moving information out of sight, you remove the single greatest constraint on poor content - namely, the eyes of other editors. In all this seems like *way* too much work for clearing out a few infoboxes that some editors don't like. JohnInDC (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

While I like the possible major reformatting of darn near every article on the project, I wonder how practical it is. While I agree to some degree with JohnInDC, I find Joopercoopers' idea to take better advantage of the medium. Is there some reason that hyperlinks in the TOC are more efficient than both a TOC and a kind of meta-TOC? The main problems would be to

1. determine just how we want to do this
2. how to present it (look like Windows, look like Linux, look like a Mac, look like something else)
3. how to do the conversion, and hardest
4. to convince the rest of the project to do this.

In general, the best change is the least change. For now, unless you really want to attack the big change right now, try concentrating on what you want now. Then air this major reorg in a page where it can be seen by the largest number of editors. I'm very interested in this. "infobox" qua infobox is not my main point: I want a way to see a summary. I've got to think about this. I think a tabbed interface makes sense since pretty much everyone will understand it. Another good thing about it is that it helps split up long articles which go beyond the limits of some browsers without making arbitrary divisions such as exist in some pages. For instance, imagine a South Park article where the List of South Park episodes was on a tab rather than a completely separate article. We could use tabs for such things. This could solve multiple long standing problems. Good work, Joopercoopers! - Denimadept (talk) 16:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This is all way beyond the scope of an infobox discussion. (Plus, wasn't this originally about achieving simplicity? This solution is the opposite of simple!) Historical note: There have been many suggestions [at WP:VPR] for splitting references/external links/galleries/etc off to new tabs. IIRC they were all thoroughly rejected (you'd have to search the archives, or ask there again, to find out why). -- Quiddity 18:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That something was rejected in the past is not in and of itself an argument for rejection this time (notwithstanding the notion of perennial proposals) if circumstances are different, or technology has improved. Consensus can change. If particular past arguments are particularly apt, reviewing those particular arguments might well be helpful though. Since you're mooting them, whatever they are, you should feel free to provide the links, rather than suggesting a big search by others. However this proposal should be considered on its merits. Not rejected "because we've always done it that way" or because it was "not invented here". ++Lar: t/c 11:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This thread has nothing directly to do with infoboxes (it is about tabbed interfaces), and was moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Start of Village Pump discussion days ago. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal: Add a guideline against hiding of infoboxes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wording similar to this should be added to to the Implementations section of this article:

Infoboxes are not to be hidden (with the exception of long subsections, eg Toronto or Bertolt Brecht)

The wording may be followed with a sentence confirming the strong opposition to hiding infoboxes by multiple admins and mentioning printing and display problems specifically. For comments in opposition to hiding infoboxes supporting this addition please see this archived Village Pump discussion. Sswonk (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Admins don't make policy, the community does.
2. The 'debate' was launched without notifiying me or wetman as far as I can see and so was conducted inabsentia of us making our case (we both had proposals for improvements)
3. Taking such debate to the MOS infobox now is really forum shopping....again.
4. Consensus is not a vote it weighs arguments - if the only argument against is its a problem printing collapsed boxes, pehaps there may be a simple and easy technical solution.

Regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There were several concerns with hidden infoboxes other than just printing pages. There were what I'd call philosophical objections to hiding otherwise pertinent article information (particularly by default); I noted the likelihood that the ability to hide infoboxes would remove what is probably the strongest incentive for keeping them streamlined now. Those are at least two more issues. All that said, I agree that the issues do not appear to have been fully aired and that possible suggestions need a bit more ripening time before they're ready. I don't by this comment intend to revive the discussion here and now - just to note that there seem to be a lot of different arguments, pro and con. JohnInDC (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Responses to Joopercoopers above, then let's continue with the wording of a proposed addition as described at top:

1. Ok.
2. Nope. The forum outgrew the topic, and was moved from Request for assistance to this spot and finally to WP:VPR at the request of some participants. This was stated clearly at the time of each move. Your proposal got the most buzz at the Village Pump, and then things started to deteriorate through divergence. I suffer for having liked your proposal much better than simply hiding the infoboxes, and subsequently that discussion you wished to develop some more got taken by the wind. I will ask you first to advance your own idea if that type of situation occurs again. But, it was made clear in each forum as a move was made.
3. Nope. See above, it is back to where a specific proposal against hiding infoboxes needs to be.
4. Ok. The proposed addition would obviously be superseded by future developments, but infoboxes should not be hidden until then.

Sswonk (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Point 2. above: the "topic outgrew the forum" didn't seem to fit. The participants broadened the topic is probably better. Sswonk (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There has been rather a lot of wiggle in where this gets discussed. But more importantly I want to go on record as stating that "strong opposition to hiding infoboxes by multiple admins" is a specious argument. Admins carry no more weight than anyone else in discussion. But if you think they do, how much does being a CU count for? 5 admins? 10? How about being a steward? 50 admins? 100? That's really rather a ludicrous notion, isn't it? We don't decide things based on character classes or hitpoints. (but if we did I think I've got the lot of you trumped all by my lonesome)... I hope this is the last I hear of that particular line of reasoning. ++Lar: t/c 11:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Lar, that's a lot of question marks for something asked and answered, although you may not have understood that my "1. Ok." in the response to Joopercoopers sought to remove that passage from consideration. Now it is physically stricken. But to provide at least some answer, I think even-handedness, talent and patience are important virtues, often more so than edit counts, adminship or tenacity. I would like to see a few more hours of discourse here, for the record if nothing else, but feel the need to archive this soon if more support is not forthcoming. Thank you for your insights. Sswonk (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of a line stating that "Infoboxes are not to be hidden..." because: 1. Inconsistent (confusing) 2. Accessibility issues 3. Printing problems 4. Can break page layouts 5. Creates edit-war problems 6. Hides vandalism 7. Adds unneeded complexity.
  Note: For anyone who wasn't following along in the thread above, this proposed addition is to prevent future arguments over situations like this (collapsed/hidden infobox in diff). (per WP:ZEN#17) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You're in opposition based in part on quoting yourself on a "humor" page? That seems rather... circular. ++Lar: t/c 11:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeesh! That was a tangential humourous aside. I'll strike it, if that makes you happier. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Opppose - This proposal is premature. I think much more experimentation and investigation is needed. And even if this proposal should happen to achieve local consensus here, doing the right thing for the article, taking the article's unique needs and considerations into account, is the right thing to do for the project. The MoS is a guide, not an iron straitjacket. Those mooting this proposal now seem rather... closed. ++Lar: t/c 04:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. But isn't the place for experimentation and investigation the sandbox and talkpage, not the live article? The infobox collapsed is akin to a point of view, per those previous discussions. When consensus arrives, as I stated above, the proposed MOS guideline above can be deprecated, superseded and booted out altogether. Are there other past experiments you can think of that I can reference? Sswonk (talk) 04:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Every article, even an FA, is always an "experiment" and a work in progress. Let a hundred flowers bloom, so we can all benefit, rather than stomping through the flower garden with iron boots the way this proposal does. The harm from a bit of minor inconsistency is far outweighed by the continuous improvement that is possible. ++Lar: t/c 11:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

But, apart from mollifying the folks who consider infoboxes to be an eyesore, hiding infoboxes has no tangible benefits, and has many obvious and immediate drawbacks. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Premature per Lar. Hiding infoboxes will be discretionary not compulsory and there may be cases where this is the best compromise between inclusion or non-inclusion of a box. To take Quiddities points in turn: 1. Inconsistency - Infoboxes, despite the claims, are already inconsistent because different projects 'win' the argument for inclusion on different articles see Mission San Xavier del Bac vs. Fatehpur Sikri vs. Sydney Opera House. 2. Accessibility issues - please expand on why this is a problem, it's no worse than collapsible navboxes. 3.Printing problems - still a problem conceeded when in print preview you can click the show/hide box a choose whether you would like to print the box contents as well as the article. The facility to do this is therefore an improved user function. 4. Can break page layouts - so can regular boxes, indeed half their problem is the difficulty of formating normal images around them. 5. Creates edit-war problems - that's an editor behaviour problem, not an endemic problem with the box - infoboxes can do that anyway. (cf. Buckingham Palace) 6. Hides Vandalism - no worse than Navboxes do. 7. Adds unneeded complexity - hardly brain surgery and solves a problem with minimal additional complexity. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I am skeptical of the naked proposition that a multiplicity of choices, particularly ones designed to satisfy a small subset of consumers, results in an improved user function for the typical user. I am immediately reminded of the problem I face whenever I go to the grocery store to buy orange juice. All I want is the stuff that comes out of an orange when you squeeze it. It isn't a tall order, or *shouldn't* be, but thanks to the many choices provided by orange juice manufacturers desperate to leave no market segment untapped, the task has become time-consuming and exasperating. No pulp, some pulp, *lots* of pulp, calcium added, with or without antioxidants, low acid, with Omega-3, low-cal (with or without calcium). And that's just Tropicana! I find myself buying more apple juice lately. I agree that we should wait to see the proposed implementation of the solution to the infobox issues before trying to achieve consensus on the issue but I have to say, at this point, the solutions all sound like they're going to be *far* more trouble than simply doing a better job of keeping infoboxes streamlined and concise. JohnInDC (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Point-by-point of the critical issues: 1. We're talking about hidden-vs-non-hidden, not any of the other variables. 2. Collapsible navboxes are bad too, but at least they're at the bottom of the articles. They're only hidden if there are 2 or more, to prevent problems with huge stacks of navboxes. 3. In wiki's printable-mode you can select hide/show, but you cannot see the infobox at all - regardless of which you pick - in firefox's print-preview mode. 5. But hidden-vs-non-hidden is a whole new thing to edit-war over, that the Ponte Vicchio experiment raises. 7. Accessibility again - we're trying to make an encyclopedia anyone can use. Not just for people who know how to tweak interfaces. (We may find these things obvious, but the barely-computer-literate do not). The default view should be the most accessible view.

Again: The only benefit that hidable-infoboxes has, is mollifying the anti-infobox folks; the drawbacks overwhelm this one benefit. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Striking my refutation above regarding printing - Quiddity gets this one. Developer fix? --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've offered some thoughts as to why you might want to "mollifying the anti-infobox folks" at [1]. Infoboxes don't have problem per se, but there's a fair chunk of subject matter in which they are inappropriate - policy to deal with this would be good.--Joopercoopers (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

As things have progressed, the above revised wording and focus seems more to the point. I consider it moot to state within the wording that disputes surrounding the appropriateness of an infobox for a given article should be discussed on the article's talk page, since I compare infoboxes to images or tabular data. This wording can be revised to change "pages" to "tabs" if a tabbed display implementation for articles becomes available in the future. Sswonk (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.