User talk:Geogre/Templates: Difference between revisions

< User talk:Geogre Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:28, 4 August 2006 editMcginnly (talk \| contribs)Rollbackers14,989 edits →Derived from the article?← Previous edit		Revision as of 02:22, 5 August 2006 edit undoGeogre (talk \| contribs)25,257 edits →Derived from the article?Next edit →
Line 9:		Line 9:
	**''quickly find people who disagree that it should be true at all'' hehe sorry but I'd like to throw in a thought here. When thinking of Infoboxes, I'm minded of the sort of information sometimes found in the ] building studies. The article proper will give a discourse of the buildings context, construction, precedents and quite a bit of specific pertinent data. However infoboxes are included at the end of the article listing information which is quite useful for reference but otherwise too dry to be unnaturally crow-barred into the prose such as price per square metre, total area of cladding, mechanical and service engineer's addresses etc. I wonder about the nature of an ''enclyo''pedia. Policy suggested we should use a summary style in our prose. Maybe the infobox is where supplementary data should be located?--] \| ] 21:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)		**''quickly find people who disagree that it should be true at all'' hehe sorry but I'd like to throw in a thought here. When thinking of Infoboxes, I'm minded of the sort of information sometimes found in the ] building studies. The article proper will give a discourse of the buildings context, construction, precedents and quite a bit of specific pertinent data. However infoboxes are included at the end of the article listing information which is quite useful for reference but otherwise too dry to be unnaturally crow-barred into the prose such as price per square metre, total area of cladding, mechanical and service engineer's addresses etc. I wonder about the nature of an ''enclyo''pedia. Policy suggested we should use a summary style in our prose. Maybe the infobox is where supplementary data should be located?--] \| ] 21:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
	***Also, I thought proponents of infoboxes argue that they are valuable because techy-types can extract all of the information across multiple articles to compile erm......lists I suppose. Is this mentioned in the page?--] \| ] 21:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)		***Also, I thought proponents of infoboxes argue that they are valuable because techy-types can extract all of the information across multiple articles to compile erm......lists I suppose. Is this mentioned in the page?--] \| ] 21:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

			I did mention the "compare across articles of a type," but if a box has information that isn't in the main article, then I maintain that someone is doing something wrong. The box becomes a ''separate'' article and can't be added as "no harm, no foul" because it's then an editorial change. In the past, the boxers have said that the boxes are just helpful, that they're not changing anything, that no one should complain, because they're harmless. Well, if they're including information that isn't researched, isn't cited, isn't in the article, then either the article needs help or the box is out of line. Anyway, people will disagree with anything said about boxes, to some degree. My goal is a process rather than a ruling, to try to come up with some general guidelines for how we approach gluing things onto existing articles. Boxes and tags differ from other edits because they inevitably come ''after'' an article is more or less complete. ] 02:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:22, 5 August 2006

Derived from the article?

"However, all of what is contained in an infobox must be derived from the article."

This is one of those things that is true in the ideal article but very much not the case in practice, isn't it? In fact, I suspect if we get eyeballs on this proposal outside this circle, we will quickly find people who disagree that it should be true at all. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I said it, though: if it isn't the same information that's in the article, then it is, effectively, a displaced paragraph or a counter article. If it's novel information, then the people who put it up there should go in and make sure it appears in the article as well. This is at the heart of the distinction between an infobox and, basically, a new piece of the article. E.g. in a textbook (which is where, I think, most of the boxers get their inspiration), there will be a little box for the MTV-addled reader, and it will be "the thing you need to study for the test because we know you're not reading and can't extract notes." That box has to represent stuff that's in the textbook, or else it's not an infobox. Geogre 16:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

- quickly find people who disagree that it should be true at all hehe sorry but I'd like to throw in a thought here. When thinking of Infoboxes, I'm minded of the sort of information sometimes found in the Architects Journal building studies. The article proper will give a discourse of the buildings context, construction, precedents and quite a bit of specific pertinent data. However infoboxes are included at the end of the article listing information which is quite useful for reference but otherwise too dry to be unnaturally crow-barred into the prose such as price per square metre, total area of cladding, mechanical and service engineer's addresses etc. I wonder about the nature of an enclyopedia. Policy suggested we should use a summary style in our prose. Maybe the infobox is where supplementary data should be located?--Mcginnly | Natter 21:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  - Also, I thought proponents of infoboxes argue that they are valuable because techy-types can extract all of the information across multiple articles to compile erm......lists I suppose. Is this mentioned in the page?--Mcginnly | Natter 21:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I did mention the "compare across articles of a type," but if a box has information that isn't in the main article, then I maintain that someone is doing something wrong. The box becomes a separate article and can't be added as "no harm, no foul" because it's then an editorial change. In the past, the boxers have said that the boxes are just helpful, that they're not changing anything, that no one should complain, because they're harmless. Well, if they're including information that isn't researched, isn't cited, isn't in the article, then either the article needs help or the box is out of line. Anyway, people will disagree with anything said about boxes, to some degree. My goal is a process rather than a ruling, to try to come up with some general guidelines for how we approach gluing things onto existing articles. Boxes and tags differ from other edits because they inevitably come after an article is more or less complete. Geogre 02:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:28, 4 August 2006 editMcginnly (talk \| contribs)Rollbackers14,989 edits →Derived from the article?← Previous edit		Revision as of 02:22, 5 August 2006 edit undoGeogre (talk \| contribs)25,257 edits →Derived from the article?Next edit →
Line 9:		Line 9:
	**''quickly find people who disagree that it should be true at all'' hehe sorry but I'd like to throw in a thought here. When thinking of Infoboxes, I'm minded of the sort of information sometimes found in the ] building studies. The article proper will give a discourse of the buildings context, construction, precedents and quite a bit of specific pertinent data. However infoboxes are included at the end of the article listing information which is quite useful for reference but otherwise too dry to be unnaturally crow-barred into the prose such as price per square metre, total area of cladding, mechanical and service engineer's addresses etc. I wonder about the nature of an ''enclyo''pedia. Policy suggested we should use a summary style in our prose. Maybe the infobox is where supplementary data should be located?--] \| ] 21:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)		**''quickly find people who disagree that it should be true at all'' hehe sorry but I'd like to throw in a thought here. When thinking of Infoboxes, I'm minded of the sort of information sometimes found in the ] building studies. The article proper will give a discourse of the buildings context, construction, precedents and quite a bit of specific pertinent data. However infoboxes are included at the end of the article listing information which is quite useful for reference but otherwise too dry to be unnaturally crow-barred into the prose such as price per square metre, total area of cladding, mechanical and service engineer's addresses etc. I wonder about the nature of an ''enclyo''pedia. Policy suggested we should use a summary style in our prose. Maybe the infobox is where supplementary data should be located?--] \| ] 21:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
	***Also, I thought proponents of infoboxes argue that they are valuable because techy-types can extract all of the information across multiple articles to compile erm......lists I suppose. Is this mentioned in the page?--] \| ] 21:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)		***Also, I thought proponents of infoboxes argue that they are valuable because techy-types can extract all of the information across multiple articles to compile erm......lists I suppose. Is this mentioned in the page?--] \| ] 21:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

			I did mention the "compare across articles of a type," but if a box has information that isn't in the main article, then I maintain that someone is doing something wrong. The box becomes a ''separate'' article and can't be added as "no harm, no foul" because it's then an editorial change. In the past, the boxers have said that the boxes are just helpful, that they're not changing anything, that no one should complain, because they're harmless. Well, if they're including information that isn't researched, isn't cited, isn't in the article, then either the article needs help or the box is out of line. Anyway, people will disagree with anything said about boxes, to some degree. My goal is a process rather than a ruling, to try to come up with some general guidelines for how we approach gluing things onto existing articles. Boxes and tags differ from other edits because they inevitably come ''after'' an article is more or less complete. ] 02:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)