Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:22, 15 February 2013

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Infoboxes and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:INFOWATCH

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 31 days

Purpose of inboxes

When I first saw them, I thought infoboxes were cute and a waste of time. Subsequently, I've heard (I believe at Wikimania 2012) that the "invisible" utility of infoboxes is that they provide structured data - crucially important for Wikidata, DBpedia, and eventually for when the Semantic Web utilizes Misplaced Pages in general. So I'm now all for them. (I wish there was more structured data on Misplaced Pages.) Right now I'm participating in groups that are arguing over infoboxes, one side also saying that they're a waste of time and effort. Is there anyplace where there is a good and convincing justification for creating/having infoboxes? -- kosboot (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I spoke on that topic at the Wikimania unconference on the Sunday. We have bits of such information scattered around the place; we should probably do more. Meanwhile see Misplaced Pages:microformats and Help:Microformats for information about the metadata encoded into infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this Andy. I hope it goes far in convincing more people of the necessity of infoboxes. -- kosboot (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm also drafting an essay at User:Pigsonthewing/Persondata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Mabeenot's article in the Signpost https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-02-11/WikiProject_report is a very good step - perhaps it should be partly incorporated into this article. -- kosboot (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

WP Infoboxes in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Infoboxes for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggested grammar and link change to an Infobox

I have made a post at related to a suggested usage change/format for the GDP field as included in a number of Infobox Settlement templates. Please post any comments you have there. Eldumpo (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes essay

After the long conversation at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Wikiproject notes in articles I believe we really need a proper essay on the debate over Infoboxes so that our readers see each side of the debate be they right or wrong (I am assuming there is not one as I cant find it). I want to just start - but think its best to do a little research on the problem first. Looking for links to debates like ( here and earlier debates here), relevant essays etc.. Would love some help and input.Moxy (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's an essay critical of infoboxes and a response essay. There's also an essay looking at an alternative to the current infobox templates. Also check out this week's WikiProject Report for comments from this project's members. –Mabeenot (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Infobox book

{{Infobox book}} needs to switch to support bare filenames for image. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I have put in an edit request to enable that functionality for this infobox, as it is WP:FULLY protected. Please check the template talk page to see if it has been granted. VanIsaac_{WS Vex} 20:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I came with a solution that supports both bare filenames and the old style till we fix them all. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

We should start adding a (hidden) category to infoboxes needing that change. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of infoboxes

Has anyone here run into deletion of infoboxes, based on the essay alluded to in this deletion? And if so, how does one respond? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Essays are not policy, guideline, or anything except the opinion of one person. Revert the removal with impunity. If there is a legitimate point to some of the infobox fields being erroneous or misleading, try to deal with it if you revert. VanIsaac_{WS Vex} 04:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks like this was just a blank infobox, so try to add some actual information this time. VanIsaac_{WS Vex} 04:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Many times, (though still a tiny proportion of our million-plus infoboxes) and attempts to hold a reasoned discussion, per WP:BRD, often result in a shitstorm. For recent examples, see Talk:Little Moreton Hall, Talk:Montacute House (where in each case, infoboxes are hidden), Talk:Melville Island (Nova Scotia), Talk:Hans-Joachim Hessler and Talk:Cosima Wagner for some recent examples. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

So glad I'm not alone in my opinion. You can shout, kick and scream all you like Andy (you're recent behaviour has been appealing), but you won't succeed in forcing these horrible things on every historic building in a uniform fashion. This carting a debate that you have lost from page-to-page does you no credit at all. You are making yourself appear very puerile spoilt.  Giano  13:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

QED (but thanks for the compliment). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with most of the things written in this essay. For instance:

• "If the infobox contains subjective categories, it is a disinfobox." NO. This means the infobox's content should change.
• "If the infobox is longer than a third of the article's body, it is a disinfobox." NO. This means the page needs expansion.
• "If a biographical infobox contains only a photo, a person's occupation, and date and place of birth/death, it is a disinfobox." No. It's better than just having a single photo.
• "Disinfoboxes tend to be the product of editors not interested in evaluating the merit or potential usefulness of an infobox within a particular article" This merely an opinion and judgement of motivations against WP:AGF. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a distinction to be made between the value of an infobox, and (when it is inserted into an article), the manner in which the infobox is added. In some of the examples that have already been quoted, above, the main initiator and advocate of infoboxes seemed to be rather practically acting against their addition by the manner in which that addition was done. Thus, useful support for an infobox from potential allies was diminished because of what I can only and simply describe as a hamfisted and unskilled edit that certainly was perceived by some to contravene the spirit of collaborative working.In this, perception is important, and many ignore it at their peril, because we are in a persuasion situation.

If you want to persuade people round to using infoboxes, you need to pay attention to the way in which you go and add them to articles. All successful persuasions in which you build committment rather than grudging tolerance (at best) start from a basis of those people's existing opinions that you wish to change. This can require careful thought to devise a suitable strategy, and eagerness or lack of patience can often thwart an entire enterprise by not getting a good strategy. At the moment, the addition of infoboxes has sometimes be done so that it becomes a radical and large edit to an already-established article (sometimes one that is at Featured Status, or one that is in some other prominent position within wikipedia), and it is done in a way that makes the end-result look worse than without to established editors who may have worked long and hard to add content to an article and make it look good without an infobox and have had no input to the process of adding an infobox.

I dispute Andy Mabbett's comment that on Little Moreton Hall he did an acceptable job of initiating a "reasoned discussion", because he added an infobox without any prior discussion (see WP:5P, and WP:Reckless) and he now suggests, by implication, others were responsible for a "shitstorm" that then happened: even the description of what happened is unlikely to act to persuade the editors who objected at the undiscussed addition, and the accusation of ownership that then was the response to an objection. This type of action ands up alienating people more rather than persuading them, and, like it or not, you do have to do this both in a general way (by writing well-published essays) and on a case-by-case way (for individual articles). I am not trying to be objectionable here, but I am trying to suggest, gently, that (a) one needs diplomacy to carry your work forwards at times, (b) actions like the ones I have suggested, above, do not seem to fit easily within the framework of Wikpedia principles of collaborative working, and (c) (speaking as a professional researcher in the area), they do not represent good strategic use of well-understood practices of how to be successfully persuasive. I put it down to extreme enthusiasm that leads to impatience, which can sometimes be good, but which sometimes means one acts a little sub-optimally, and leads to a breakdown of assumptions of good faith. However, that seems to have happened a number of times, and I imagine, unless changes are made, it will happen again. Instead of imposing infoboxes on articles that don't have them, and engendering grudging tolerance (and potential resentment) by so doing; it seems more in the spirit of wikipedia to try to change the strategy to build committment in others by persuading them and carrying them with you! There are other issues similar to these about strategy that can be made, but I feel I must, once again, stress that these thoughts are offered up to you all as a way of helping you achieve your ends in a better, less confrontational way, which is what I hope we all, deep down, are committed to here on wikipedia. I am not immune from making these mistakes, either (after all, I am human), but I hope what I have said here, after a period of reflection, can help us all move forward. DDStretch  (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

QED. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I like infoboxes, and I have added many of them to articles, but I think the approaches to adding them, especially the ones you gave in a short list, turned into confrontational exchanges, exactly because of the problems that your short, seemingly point-scoring message, above, seems to illustrate. This makes me sad. Can any others give me more than a smart-put-down-like comment to what I have written: I wrote it as a means of building bridges and making positive suggestions for you all, because I am not against infoboxes or having them added to articles, but there are ways of doing that and there are ways of doing that! If you like, I can even cite reliable sources that back up the strategic issues I have mentioned. However, this kind of answer, above, is exactly what made a difficult insertion of an infobox to an article a source of confrontation and anger. Surely we can do better than this?  DDStretch  (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)