Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Collapsible section in infobox

header1
label2data2

Hi all, I wonder if there are any efficient way of including a collapsible section within an infobox? By collapsible section, I mean a [collapse/expand] button next to a header text, and that button can hide or show all following label/data rows. I have seen some earlier attempts in the following list of infobox templates:

but what bothers me is that they are not standard and not expandable. I have also checked that adding a child {{Infobox}} would not work, since child infobox is not actually a <table>. That's why I would like to know, is there any suggested way to perform that? Thanks. — Peterwhy 11:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You can use {{collapsed infobox section begin}} and {{collapsed infobox section end}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
or, you can use {{infobox subbox bodystyle}} with |bodyclass=collapsible collapsed. my goal is to have {{infobox subbox bodystyle}} as |subbox=yes or something similar, but until then, I put the class statements in a template. this way they can be easily tracked and converted later. Frietjes (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for both of your suggestions, and they are what I wanted. — Peterwhy 15:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox YouTube channel

Hey there WikiProject Infoboxes . I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but can one of you help me make an infobox? I want to make a an infobox for YouTube channels at {{Infobox YouTube channel}}. I just do not know how. Cheers, nerdfighter 14:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

you could probably use {{infobox website}}, unless there is something specifically that cannot be handled by that template? Frietjes (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
searching at TFD, it looks like Infobox YouTube video used to exist, but was deleted. Frietjes (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox orchestra

Please comment on the replacement of {{Infobox musical artist}} with {{Infobox orchestra}} at Template talk:Infobox orchestra#Use of this infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

To have or not to have infoboxes

I feel WP's non-committal attitude towards infoboxes is the cause of a lot of unnecesary dissention on WP. I see Andy Mabbett (whose energy seems limitless) arguing with various parties, and it strikes me as such a waste of energy. If there was a clear direction, everyone could either fall in line or get out of the way. Of course the nature of WP is that there are few hard-and-fast rules (which I think is a major cause of arguments). I wish there could be more of an endorsement that infoboxes are a good and recommended thing, and a necessary feature if WP is going to move into the semantic web. Is there any path through which this could be achieved? -- kosboot (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see a requirement that all articles of certain types include infoboxes. For example, I think that all biography articles should have an infobox, but some people resist even that. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Agreed; since things have to be done by consensus, what can be done to create a strong case for infoboxes even for people who are against them? -- kosboot (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The content issues (that are specific to each article) can and need to be solved, and it requires more work than most drive-by !voters or infobox-adders are often willing to do.

This issue doesn't need force of weight behind it. It needs careful understanding of why exactly the sane/rational/intelligent editors have certain objections. Most of the issues can be resolved, but require smart solutions, such as the very restrictive documentation that we came up with for Template:Infobox classical composer. To repeat: Well-written template documentation, is a key step in solving this.

Bruteforce majority will end badly (with the editors that churn out Brilliant Prose, ie. the meat of the Featured articles, retiring in groups). Slow and careful analysis, of the all-too-real problems in infoboxes for topics with subjective areas of classification (eg "genre" or "ethnicity" or "other occupation") will potentially result in amicable steps forward. I sure as hell hope we take that slow path. –Quiddity (talk) 00:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly endorse Quiddity's final two sentences. However, {{Infobox classical composer}} is a pig in a poke, recreated out of precess after a legitimate deletion debate, and used mainly to replace other, better, and more richly featured infoboxes. That is not the way forward, either. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Is there any value in asking why infoboxes contain fields requiring subjective classification in the first place? If the field is subjective then by definition completion of it is the editor's opinion. I thought we didn't have editorial opinion in articles. If a person's "ethnicity" isn't reliably sourced it has no business being anywhere in an article, much less in the infobox. Or am I just being naive? Cottonshirtτ 04:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I think the distinction lies within the difference between the inherently subjective nature of racial classifications but the objective essence of reflecting reliable sources about a person's ethnicity. So while it would be troublesome for me to claim that some person is of X ethnicity/race, I can nevertheless reflect that a person was called X race/ethnicity in a reliable source; Eg, simply saying that Marco Rubio is Latino would be OR, but reflecting that he is called a Cuban-American politician in reliable sources would not be problematic. So even "subjective" fields can be objectively sourced. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 07:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
The fields are all optional, and different articles might use them or might not use them (This needs to be emphasised in all the infobox-templates-documentation).
The problems generally arise when goodfaith editors try to fill in fields that don't have definitive values, or have values that changed over the course of time, or have values of varying importance (eg. the "other occupations" fields for composer's biographies), or etc.
Placing near-empty infoboxes on pages, with all the fields just aching to be filled out, is another part of the problem.
Making the documentation clearer, and getting into the habit of leaving comments saying <!-- don't fill in this field, see talk --> in certain fields on certain articles, are two potential fixes that we need to be thinking about. –Quiddity (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it's worth pointing out that infoboxes may be much more helpful to some projects than others. I'm working on one about American federal legislation. In this case, a good infobox provides a quick bite of helpful information about the bill the article is about - who introduced it, when, what committees looked at it, major votes on the bill, etc. It's easy to add that data, it's all strictly factual, and it adds value to the page to readers. I hope that any decisions made about infoboxes wouldn't negatively impact cases like this one. (I do agree that some infoboxes need better documentation...). Just my two cents as a fairly new user. HistoricMN44 (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested modifications to legislative infobox

Hi! I'm part of a new Wikiproject, Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Federal Government Legislative Data, focused on writing articles about notable pieces of United States legislation. The current infobox related to this, Template:Infobox U.S. legislation, is designed primarily to contain information about enacted legislation, whereas our project is interested in also including notable proposed legislation. We'd like to see some changes in the infobox to make it more friendly/helpful to this purpose. I've outlined the proposed changes here: Template talk:Infobox U.S. legislation#Requested Modifications. I'm too new at this to do this myself and I don't want to screw up all the pages that are using this infobox. Can anyone check out my proposed modifications and help me out? Thanks! HistoricMN44 (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I just want to rescind this request, in case anyone looks at it. I've been working with some other editors in my geographical area to fix these issues. Thanks!HistoricMN44 (talk) 13:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Dispatch article

Infoboxes are discussed, very negatively, at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-07-10/Dispatch. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

RFAR

I have filed an Arb request here: link — Ched :  ?  17:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox euphemisms, RFC

Should the many infoboxs in biographies include the parameter "Resting place"? It seems it would be more encyclopedic for that parameter to say "Buried at". Please indicate if this is something you agree or disagree with. :) John Cline (talk) 06:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is something I agree or disagree with. Frankly, if a project wants to have "resting place", I really couldn't care. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 07:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a perennial question. "Resting place" is not a euphemism (it's rest as in "come to rest; stop", not "relax"). Not all resting places involve burial. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Good point. It would be inappropriate to talk about where Lenin is "buried at". VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 19:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Infobox wrapper templates

I have created Category:Infobox wrapper templates. Please feel free to make use of it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Occupations of people

It occurs to me that, when we use {{Infobox person}}, we usually complete |occupation= with "journalist", "pilot" or whatever, but when we use a specific infobox, like, for example, {{Infobox scientist}}, {{Infobox footballer}} or {{Infobox writer}}, we often don't give the occupation state the respective role - which is clearly a - and often the - key facet of their life and notability.

We could, perhaps, add an optional parameter to each biographical infobox, which could have a default value if no other (including "null") is set.

How should we best proceed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course, the occupation parameter should always be enabled, but I think you are mistaken in your assertion that a person's occupation is so important. If I go to an article about an important biochemist, it's pretty minimally notable whether they are a research professor, industrial researcher, high school teacher, or corporate attorney who happened upon an important discovery in their backyard lab. What they did is far more fundamental, and most importantly, there really is no default occupation. So certainly make sure that if an editor puts |occupation = professional spelunker that we know our erstwhile ballet dancer actually ran a cave diving company for his day job, but don't assume that every notable baseball player in history was a professional at the game. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 20:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
The default occupation need not be a day-job but {{Infobox poker player}} should tell readers that the subject was a poker player (though in individual cases we might add that they also worked as a plumber or airline pilot); {{Infobox scientist}} that they are a scientist (unless overridden by "biologist", "biochemist" or whatever) and so on. And yes, every person notable for being a baseball player should have that made clear in their infobox, even if they earned their money doing that or waiting tables. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

As a stalking horse (i.e. I don't expect this to be the final resolution), I have added a "Pirate" subheader to {{Infobox pirate}}, which can optionally be overridden using |occupation=, as at John Ordronaux (privateer). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

So, how so we take this forward? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added the role to {{Infobox cricketer}} (see, for example, Joel Garner), {{Infobox gymnast}} and {{Infobox golfer}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Not a fan of the proposed style – something along the lines of the header used in Template:Infobox ministerial office would be better IMHO – and I'm not really sure about the whole thing overall. Aren't we really just stating the obvious? Our readers (for the most part) aren't complete idiots and should be able to use their basic comprehension skills to figure out what the subject of the article is notable for – unless it's a really, really poorly written article. Vanisaac's comments above are also relevant – many sportspeople have played multiple sports or are better known for other things, but only have an infobox for a single sport. Overall, I just don't think it's much of an improvement in its current format. IgnorantArmies 14:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
"Occupation" is often not a good description for what a person does, think of composers or other creative artists. Also I think it's a good idea to tell a reader right on top that someone is a cricketeer, not below data for birth and death, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
The word "occupation" is not displayed; this is separate from |occupation=, where it exists. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
What I mean: sometimes the display of an "occupation" is not wanted, - to show right on top that someone is a composer could help, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah yes, I see what you mean; I think that's catered for well, here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
We may be stating the obvious to "most" of our readers, but what about the rest? One of the main purposes of an infobox is to summarise the "key points" of the subject; surely in these cases, for example, it is that they are a cricketer, golfer or gymnast? Happy to discuss matters of style; I'm no designer; but {{Infobox ministerial office}} has accessibility issues. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

This section covers too much without direction.

{{Infobox pirate}} now uniformly displays the word 'Pirate' in the box header linked to the article Pirate. I think it's fair to say the infobox labels its subject a pirate. --P64 (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

{Pirate} does not provide the occupation field. It's possible to provide both.
A label in the box header might be completed by parameter, whence it would be variable rather than uniform.
{{Infobox writer}} provides no heading but the person's name. It has occupation and genre fields that are almost never empty in my experience. They are used flexibly. Beside flexible/inconsistent/undisciplined format: [1] each sometimes lists unlike values (occupation=Author, screenwriter); [2] occupation in one biography (occ=Screenwriter; gen=Horror) corresponds to genre in another (occ=Writer; gen=Screenplay); [3] they are sometimes used redundantly (occ=Novelist, dramatist, poet; gen=Novels, drama, poetry). Meanwhile the flexibility permits [4] coverage of occ=Writer and occ=Illustrator and occ=Illustrator, writer all by one template. --P64 (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
In between your two posts, I'd already updated {{Infobox pirate}} so that the default subheader "Pirate" can be overridden using |role=. I'd he happy to do that for the other templates mentioned above, also. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on this.
I agree that our Stephen Hawking would be improved by 'Physicist' in the second line of the infobox header, rather than 'CH CBE' (by free-form entry in the name field). Also rather than 'Scientist'. Also rather than nothing. If we do or hope to label scientists by Field such as General relativity, Quantum gravity, as for Hawking, then a more prominent label by field such as Physicist makes sense. Our Stephen Jay Gould is labeled Field Paleontology, Evolutionary biology, History of Science. (That matches the lead sentence description as Hawking's Field does not.) I am not sure this would be improved by 'Scientist' or another label in the box header.
We have many {infobox writer} completed with complex occupation, analogous to Gould's Field. Eg, James Gunn (author), Occ=Professor of English, critic, fiction writer; Donald Wollheim, Occ=Publisher, editor, writer, critic (also a fan in the lead sentence and section 1 heading).
Can we provide flexibility yet discipline the urge to put a list up there? I have no confident foresight. --P64 (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words; it's warming to receive some appreciation. In the case of {{Infobox scientist}} (As used on Hawking( I would propose a default label of "Scientist", but the facility to override that with another value, such as "physicist". (I have already suggested on that template's talk page that separate parameters for honorifics (pre- and suffixes) should be created, as with other biographical templates. I also plan to draft documentation strongly cautioning that short, single-word or phrase label should be used (so, for Winston Churchill, "Statesman", not all his other, more specific, roles). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Gender

I am against the addition of the gender parameter in pages. I would like infoboxes to be gender neutral. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you give an example please; or two? I am likely over-thinking your statement and therefore not exactly clear. Thanks. :) John Cline (talk) 07:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I 've been influenced by Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language. I would prefer not to see male/female symbols polluting infoboxes. Why is important to state a person's gender? In the past there were problems with some persons due to that. We had speculations, libel, vandalism, etc. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
We are an encyclopedia. Reporting factually that a person is male or female (I'm also looking to cater for "gender queer" cases, which statistically are very few) is an encyclopedic fact. We have no other way for someone to programmatically determine the gender of a subject (although we do already have some infoboxes with gender-specifying parameters) WP:GNL does not prohibit us from doing so. We deal with BLP issues and vandalism in the usual way, not by hiding citable facts. And please avoid hyperbole like "polluting". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Marios refers to the symbol in, for example {{Infobox gymnast}}; see its documentation for a demonstration. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
As I indicated, I'm likely over-thinking the intent here. For example I can not imagine a more gender neutral manner of describing a person than to accurately reflect their gender. My endeavors where gender neutrality seems appropriate involves things like a position; for example I would not describe a Chief Executive Officer by specific gender, though I would definitely describe Steve Jobs as the founder and CEO of Apple while referring to him as he. If that sounds reasonable, it is more than likely that we agree. I could never endorse a neutrality regiment that encroached reason while endeavoring to sterilize a presentation. :) John Cline (talk) 09:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I think these changes are getting a bit ridiculous. The stated "purpose" of an infobox is to "summarize [the] key facts" of an article, but it's not as if we need to have the infobox functioning as Cliff's Notes for the whole article. Gender and occupation are the most basic characteristics of any person and will be made abundantly clear within the first few sentences in 99% of articles. And even if gender is considered essential for all infoboxes, the ♂ and ♀ are far from universally understood, and must be violating MOS:ICON in some respect – what's wrong with "male fooer" and "female fooer"? (I feel like I'm rambling a bit here, but I just can't see the point of the changes). IgnorantArmies 12:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

"'summarize [the] key facts'" of an article... most basic characteristics" I think you've just refuted your own argument there. The icons are well understood, but are also marked as abbreviations. Their use, occupying just one character of screen-space, in intended to meet likely objections that the full text is too prominent or obtrusive; but I'd be happy to switch to that if it were more popular (which I doubt would be the case). If yo can't see the point, I'd be happy to explain or answer any questions you have; but that's not a sound basis for describing them as "ridiculous". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Appreicate you being bold, but the change looks shit, so change it back and get a consensus. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Seconded. Andy, how does a discussion involving just five posts, four of them from you, give you a mandate to make a change, that for cricket alone, affects 12000 articles? It doesn't even seem that WP Cricket were informed (on their wikiproject talk page, few will have seen your edit summary). Jevansen (talk) 12:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
"Mandate? Required by which policy? The changes are being discussed on the template's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
So are you reverting your infobox changes or not? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
To be clear, my main objection is stylistic. Your changes are distracting, ugly even. However, I still don't see how having a person's gender in their infobox is necessary or useful. From what I can, the major "specialised" infoboxes – officeholder, writer, musical artist, sportsperson – don't display gender, or even "occupation", and I doubt this led to any readers being unable to determine either of these. IgnorantArmies 15:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
If there are concerns about stylistic issues, beyond personal preferences, they can be discussed, and can be discussed without needing to revert the changes. As it is, the display is minimal, deliberately so, taking up only a single character. I've already explained both the sense and usefulness of including a gender parameter, and that gender is not otherwise included in the key points provided by the infobox. The infoboxes you mention don't display the gender yet, new changes have to start somewhere, and starting with low-use templates; with templates where the subjects' sports have a clear gender divide; and with a template which already has a gender parameter, like the cricketer example, is sensible. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
So saying "I agree with this change" is a good reason to revert but "I don't like it" isn't? At any rate, if your infobox changes are as necessary and unobtrusive as you are convinced they are, you shouldn't have any problem getting a WP:Consensus. Jevansen (talk) 02:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Statistics

I've been counting up our infoboxes; we have over 2.3 million.

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes/Statistics, and feel free to make additions or fixes there. Would it be possible to automate the transclusion counts? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I've added a large handful of numbers that I collected last month, for a few of the other large languages. Hopefully that, and the reference links, are useful. –Quiddity (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

We can reduce the numbers for medal template by adding the infobox sportsperson in its position. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The medal templates are regularly used, stand alone, without the sportsperson infobox. I've raised this on eht former's talk page, previously. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Further standardisation

Please have a look at User_talk:Frietjes#Lowercase_parameters_.2F_bare_filenames of what can be done. For instance, I would like some list with infoboxes that use variations of image_size and/or not support bare filenames. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Enforcement of parameters in infoboxes? Requesting comment

Input would be appreciated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Enforcing infobox parameters (or not)?

The gist: I cut down the number of parameters used in the infobox for the article I wrote for The End of the Road (a novel) with the intention of making the infobox generally applicable to all the many editions of the book. Three editors at WikiProject:Novels decided that the infobox must contain ISBN, page count, publisher, and cover image of the first edition. We see the infobox as performing different purposes, and I would like to get input from the community on the scope and purpose of {{Infobox book}} and of the WikiProject. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Template editor user right

I got an RfCbot invite to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Template editor user right and thought this project should have an opportunity to participate. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 06:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

"See text"

I think in some cases, infobox problems can be solved by entering "see text" in a field. For example, Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes#Example 3 shows an old revision of Ponte Vecchio that listed three different years for construction. At least some users are only going to articles to see a basic bit of information like that. Placing "see text" under year constructed explicitly tells readers that "when was it built" is not a simple question to answer. This would have applications in many other fields, such as a species whose classification is disputed perhaps. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I like that. A good option for some instances. (As long as we avoid dozens of fields in the same box filled with it!) –Quiddity (talk) 06:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
My idea with "see text" is that the answer is in the article and can't be given in a single line. "Unknown" should never be used unless in certain limited cases, nobody on Earth knows. See text makes the distinction between "no one's filled this out yet" and "it's complicated" and unknown could be used but only if "nobody knows". Ego White Tray (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Broadly I agree. I have used a superscript link to explanatory footnote (template {{efn}}). Sometimes the body text is more appropriate. ...
In the context, how do you feel about saying in an infobox that a book or a navbox exists for the topic, - the infobox could then be so much shorter. Example George Frideric Handel, Graham Waterhouse, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The Waterhouse infobox needs to be longer, with image caption "Waterhouse in 2011" (minimally). The Handel caption is too long.
Do you mean the infobox would be shorter because some of the schools where he was educated, his notable works, and his parents would be named and linked in the navbox instead? To me that seems generally appropriate only for notable works and only if the list is too long, eg the twelve currently in the navbox rather than the four currently in the infobox. Perhaps we should have the option to activate infobox label "Notable works" as a link to the navbox far below.
--P64 (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I am thinking more for a future, Handel, Bach, Verdi, Wagner, you name it. I understand that project Classical music hates infoboxes for composers, but might like them better if they could be short. - Waterhouse: yes, all works could be in the navbox instead of in the infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Advice needed

A set of stubs for UK NHS Foundation Trusts are being created with handcrafted infoboxes with various problems. See Mersey Care NHS Trust for the latest example - many others already created by the same editor. As one easily fixable point: they seem too wide. What's the standard setting for width of an infobox? Could an Infobox geek perhaps drop by at User talk:Rathfelder and offer advice? Thanks. PamD 15:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Multiple infoboxes

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

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

Thanks Dr Gangrene (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Very rarely do multiple infoboxes serve much of a purpose, unless an article deals with a class of items, each of which may be appropriate for an infobox, eg Klingon writing systems. In this case, {{Infobox World Heritage Site}} can embed other infoboxes as a child, so I would experiment and see if you can't embed {{Infobox military installation}} successfully. If it weren't a world heritage site, where this sort of thing is so common, they just made it part of the infobox architecture, you would need to take a look at all the parameters of any appropriate infoboxes and see which one works best for the subject, and then just manually add any categories that would have gotten included with the other germane infoboxes. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 21:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Children in infoboxes

I am new to this page, but not to WP. It's hard for me to understand why "a quick and convenient summary of the key facts about a subject, in a consistent format and layout" (as per infobox basics) does not always include the amount of children a person had. Why is that? Seems to me that the most vital "key facts" about anyone, impacting greatly on h lifa and bio, would be how many chilren h/s had, no matter how long those children all lived. Please explain! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It's really up to individual wikiprojects whether they think that a person's children are important to basic understanding of biographic subjects within that subject area. I would say that in many areas, it is fundamentally trivial - who cares about the children of an industrial magnate, unless one of them took over the business - but some would be quite pertinent - a pope's infobox should almost certainly make note of this fact about their life. In other words, if you have a specific instance where you think it should be but isn't, please bring it up, either here or at the appropriate wikiproject; but if you are trying to impose a universal standard, I would argue against it. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 10:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Vanisaac! I see your point, and I'm not trying impose anything, just trying to understand. Here's a good example, I think. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cleanup-infobox

Template:Cleanup-infobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DrKiernan (talk) 11:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed change in infobox MOS guidelines

A couple of weeks ago I noticed an ambiguity in the guidance of MOS:INFOBOX. I proposed a change on the guideline talk page (and received one endorsement). As the proposed change did not generate much discussion, I implemented it. However, I did not realize this WikiProject existed, so I did not post a message here. Well, here is a notice for WikiProject members. Please review the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Infobox guidance ambiguity regarding summarization discussion and chime in as you desire. – S. Rich (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion regard a proposed change to infobox guidance is still ongoing. Editors are encouraged to comment. – S. Rich (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hidden content

Hello! There was some template used to hide some content of infobox in article. But I can't remember the templates' name :( Maybe someone could help? --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 18:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Depending on how much content, either {{collapsed infobox section begin}} or {{collapsible list}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
"Collapsible list" collapses one parameter, which tells the reader what to expect. Both don't work for users who don't allow collapsing. I would never use {{collapsed infobox section begin}} (which also requires {{collapsed infobox section end}}), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, {{collapsed infobox section begin}} is the one i was looking for :) --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 12:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Embedding

Having been asked a couple of times lately, how to embed templates within infoboxes, I've started:

Please help to develop/ deploy them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

DBpedia now parsing infobox subtemplates

Colleagues may be interested to know that DBpedia recently added support for a number of infobox subtemplates, including:

see DBpedia live:

http://live.dbpedia.org/page/Albert_Einstein

and note the "dbpedia-owl:citizenship" properties, for example, pulled from |citizenship= in Albert Einstein, which uses {{Plainlist}}. (Values in the dbpprop namespace are not split correctly, but this will be fixed in a forthcoming update). DBpedia static will be updated on the next release. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

To Infobox or not to Infobox

The application of an Infobox appears discretionary. There have been occasions where an Infobox added by one editor has been removed by another on this basis. This can lead to contention. There seems no clear guidelines as to whether or not an Infobox should be added, and if added, under what circumstance.

Questions: Can the Project provide guidelines as to when an Infobox is best added, and when best not ? If some editors see the value of an Infobox, and others do not, what does the Project advise for resolution ? Please see the discussion here. Many thanks. Acabashi (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing should find this discussion interesting. -- Magioladitis (talk) 04:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Using infoboxes in articles.
—Wavelength (talk) 05:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
any important discussion having any widespread impact will need to take place somewhere other than a user's talk page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
My opinion on infoboxes. They can be useful, but should not be added if they (a) have virtually nothing in them (an infobox which only contains the info listed in the first line of the article text is utterly pointless) or (b) completely unbalance the article (a very short article with a very long infobox looks ridiculous). Neither should they contain any information which is not in the body of the article. I've seen too many biographical articles with the individual's dates, place of birth etc in the infobox but not in the article text. They are a quick reference supplement, not a replacement for article text. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
That is, however, a Catch-22: They shouldn't be sparse, but they shouldn't be long. And, more to the point, it is NOT the way that the real wiki-world works. First off, statistically, over half of all wikipedia articles have infoboxes in them. Many infoboxes contain summary material that is useful and helpful, but would totally bog down the article narrative, particularly when it's technical data. Most infoboxes are developed on a project by project basis, and within that project, while some infoboxes may have relatively little information, thus in a short article they are a bit unbalanced, they are there to provide consistency across all articles in the scope of that project. Similarly, a navbox at the bottom may also unbalance the article. However, BOTH have the option of being collapsed if the technical details threaten to overwhelm the article. For example, {{Infobox mineral}} contains vast amounts of interesting data that would be ridiculous to put into an article. Similarly, let's take one of the biggest infoboxes I've seen recently, that of Serena Williams. That infobox provides a vast amount of statistical data, consistent with the reality that her career has been a very long one, and it would be utterly ridiculous to list every tournament she'd been in, even the Grand Slam ones alone would put undue weight on the article narrative. It appears that the classical music project has a problem with them, big time, and some of the literature topics don't like them. This issue has been to Arbcom once already and back for clarification a couple of times. Basically, the ArbCom ruling was, to paraphrase, "infoboxes are decided on a case by case basis and everyone should discuss the matter politely and in good faith." So good luck with all that... Montanabw(talk) 00:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
@TheRedPenOfDoom: Many thanks for that - I did ask users commenting on that user page to add any comments here - I shall do so again.
@Montanabw: Many thanks for your balanced view. Let me express my bias - I rather like the look of them (not a good argument I know), and they do offer a distilation of stuff in an article body. They are particularly useful in place articles, e.g. where the location within a map gives an immediate feel for location. Although, I can see there can be a problem generally if there's not much stuff in them. Projects such as Settlements and Schools, and no doubt others, do imply the value of Infoboxes by including them with fulsome guidelines but with no indication on when or if they should be used. So might it be not a case of ArbCom',s case by case basis, but a question to be addressed project by project. A case by case could take an inordinate amount of time better spent elsewhere. I am genuinely concerned about this as I don't want to add boxes willy-nilly, and neither do I want to revert unexplained or sparsely explained deletions of boxes without being reasonably sure of my ground. I would like some indication, Wikipedia-wide or perhaps then, Project-wide, on what basis a box is added. Many thanks for the comments here so far. Acabashi (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

@Acabashi: That was pretty much what the arbcom case was about: The anti-infobox militancy of the WP:Classical music projects, particularly opera, and their total conniption fit that some editors wanted infoboxes. Several of us (including moi) argued for a project by project base, but the best we got was "guidelines are OK, but they don't trump overall wiki policy." So yes, I happen to agree with you. My advice is to follow WP:BRD and avoid any kind of 3RR violation. Yeah, it's a damn dramafest, and I actually agree with you, but the last round of this exhausted me and wound up with two other damn good editors placed under restrictions and yet more admonished to be civil. Ask Pigsonthewing about it, he was one of the victims. Montanabw(talk) 04:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw: It looks like I'm flogging a dead horse, flogged to death previously. I am assuming all 'wiki policy' is that ultimately only decided by ArbCom, which has provided guidance on this which looks to me like the dropping of a hot potato. This ruling shouldn't stop this project from promoting a stronger wording in WP:INFOBOXUSE that any removal of an infobox should be taken to an article's Talk page first, with the infobox-adding editor, and major contributers being invited for discussion. Other projects have the facility whereby the removal or proposed removal of content under its wing is flagged up to project members to widen discussion - is there a way of doing this here ? Acabashi (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
@Acabashi:...similarly then, an addition of an infobox should equally be discussed. You are making it sound like an infobox is a default edit for any article. It's not. CassiantoTalk 18:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
In my view, the relevant guidelines here are WP:BB and WP:BRD. Infoboxes ARE a default for many wikipedia projects, especially in the sciences, and are routinely added without any objections at all. And yes, did ArbCom drop the ball? I think they did. But I'm also exhausted and discouraged by the process; the people who favor infoboxes are not as militant or bullying in their tactics as the anti-infobox crowd, and ArbCom decided to make it about personalities instead of policy.
My thinking is that if you have a project with a known hostility to infoboxes, it would be tacky to go in and add one to 100 articles! However, after a review of the talk page to be sure the issue has not been previously discussed for a particular article (see Richard Wagner for an example of the infobox war from hell) you could add an infobox to one or two that you personally are working on and where you have an active interest (as opposed to a "drive-by" edit) and see what happens: If you are reverted, keep to a 1RR and immediately go to talk and discuss. Likewise, if someone dislikes infoboxes, they should not go around moving them en masse or making dramatic changes to articles that already have them. And frankly, my own view is that a well-designed infobox IS a design element that adds to the readability and usability of the article, particularly for the casual viewer, and that is an argument to me equally compelling as all the technical ones about metadata and such. Montanabw(talk) 20:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Ich muss weg
BWV 999
Cantata by J. S. Bach
File:Road Runner decal 2 Detail.jpg
Wagner: it was not even an infobox discussion. The infobox was suggested to stay on the talk page, no more, - see what happened. Look at Peter Planyavsky if you want to get a feeling for what to expect in a discussion. That discussion was ended by Andy in an edit that an arb quoted in his vote to ban him (see?). I worked on Kafka, it truly helps. (This is one of two entries I am permitted to make in an infobox discussion.) - I am very pleased with compromise achieved for Bach's compositions (pictured) and elsewhere, - it would be nice to treat the topic with less emotion ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

👍 Like No shit! Montanabw(talk) 18:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Washington Healthplanfinder infobox

Would someone help updating the infobox at Washington Healthplanfinder. Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Music infobox genre

Hello, I have proposed a change to the genre field in infoboxes related to music (albums, singles, music artists) here. If any user could comment on it it would be greatly appreciated it. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Human height

Just seeking a wider range of input from informed persons at Template_talk:Height#rfc_97AACED.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Infoboxes/Archive_7&oldid=1137379423"