This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 |
I think we should also start discouraging the use of various ways of writing a single parameter. It encourages inconsistency and confusion. By that I mean templates shouldn't allow |birth_date=
, |BirthDate=
, |DateOfBirth=
, |date_of_birth=
, etc... eg stick with |birth_date=
, and editors should expect all templates accepting a date of birth to use that name. Right now we've got weird varieties of camel case in some templates and support/encouragement (via docs) for strange aliases in others.
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk)
19:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Please see this CfD discussion about ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Pages using deprecated image syntax. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 01:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I came across this deletion from an article‘s Infobox by Binksternet citing MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE “Avoid links to sections within the article” but the deleted link seemed to me to be useful to readers.
As best I can discover, the sentence “Avoid links to sections within the article ...” was added to the policy without discussion, either before or subsequently, by PL290 (who hasn’t been active here for almost 10 years, so I can’t discuss his reason for adding this sentence with him).
It seems to me that the link to list of episodes is useful to readers to show that such a list exists, and to allow a reader to jump straight to the list, irrespective of where the list is.
There could be other useful links from an Infobox to anchors within the article, whether sections or not, for example for significant works.
Unless there are objections I propose to delete this sentence from the policy.
Jim Craigie ( talk) 09:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
... and Template:Infobox television says only put a list article (a separate article) into that parameter— Bagumba ( talk) 10:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Agree I am agree with User:Jim Craigie, it seems we also need another consensus for {{ Infobox television}}. -- Editor-1 ( talk) 12:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Disagree Avoid
is a soft normative phrase. Avoiding intra-article links is a infobox best practice, not a hard rule. —
BillHPike (
talk,
contribs)
13:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Agree When I created the page List of One Piece media made the choice to include links to each section when listing the number of instalments of each piece of work, I personally found this to be helpful moreso than to try to link every single instalment themselves, the same format was carried over to List of Scooby-Doo media as well. ★Trekker ( talk) 13:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Agree I agree with Jim, this is something I've done in the past when linking to list of episodes and would continue to do it. Never even realized that the text mentioned above was in MOS:INFOBOX. I don't find it redundant. TheDoctorWho (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Disagree As this goes against MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. An infobox is not a mini-article and should only summarize key facts about the subject. Article navigation belongs in the TOC. MB 15:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Agree - I kind of agree and disagree. I think there are times when internal linking can be useful or necessary. For instances, for long running TV series it can be too much to link every starring role (if they hade a lot of change-over in that time) in addition to every producer, etc. etc. That can drive an infobox's length and become too much to read in a small space. In those cases, I see value in ignoring the rule and including a link that says "See below" for the appropriate section. Otherwise, you inevitably get people adding 30 names to an infobox because the section is there an empty. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Weak Agree - I don't see much of a downside, aside from potential minor redundancy with the TOC. I absolutely hate very long infoboxes that stretch halfway down the page, and this is a simple way to avoid that. As Billhpike pointed out, saying "avoid" doesn't make it a strict rule, more of a general suggestion. As such, if people want to challenge an edit where someone cited this one sentence to remove such a link from the infobox, they can do so on the article's talkpage and gain a consensus to re-add it. However, I know from experience with other infobox templates with similar cautionary lines that there will be people who don't interpret it that way and systematically make edits using this one line as their "proof", potentially making them unwilling to even engage in such a challenge. For that reason I support removing it or altering the current sentence to make it more clear that exceptions are allowed. Xfansd ( talk) 22:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Agree I agree with Jim, but feel editors should still be selective to what, if any, section links are included. As others have noted, such as Bignole, there are instances, particularly in television articles or media franchise articles, where section linking might be appropriate to direct readers to these locations, if they are not immediately aware that this content is solely housed in the section. Additionally, section headings may be worded slightly differently in which case the TOC would not be fully sufficient. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 01:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Mostly- Agree - the issue with infoboxes on franchise articles, sometimes become far too cluttered. When this happens, it is "overly"-detailed and becomes a table of contents. In franchise infoboxes, should there be installments in the different medium - it has proven useful to navigate the reader to the section that applies - instead of listing the same information that can be found in the TOC. For example: When a franchise has various and differing stars/producers/studios/etc., it's more concise and effective to direct a reader to the appropriate section.-- DisneyMetalhead ( talk) 23:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Strongly Disagree as per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. For the vast majority of articles, in-article links like this are completely pointless as the section is either level with the IB itself, or is at most "one scroll-screen" down. It's utterly pointless. And that's what a TOC is for. Reword it, maybe – but absolutely don't delete it from the MOS. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 15:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Disagree per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Yes there are cases where this is genuinely useful, but we all know that if allowed links will proliferate endlessly. I think discussion of this potentially rather significant change should be more widely advertised - perhaps an Rfc? Johnbod ( talk) 15:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I recently came across some feuding editors who had two opposing interpretations of this page. One side cited MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE in support of the claim that infoboxes should not have any facts which are not in the text of the article. The other side cited WP:INFOBOXREF in support of the claim that facts in the infobox but not in the article are allowed even if discouraged (otherwise there would not be a rule that facts in the infobox but not the article need a reference in the infobox.) It would probably help avoid such disputes in the future if this contradiction was resolved. (And maybe these sections need to cross-reference each other so they stay in sync?)
I've not considered this issue before, but personally I like the idea that an infobox can give a quick, orientating summary at a glace of the most important facts about a subject, and that the article text will amplify in more detail. This organizing principle helps scope what we might consider missing from the infobox. It's also nice that there's a standard layout so readers get use to the same info being in the same place, which is less true with prose. However, in practice I also see lots of infoboxes with minor, typically technical facts, that don't naturally fit anywhere in the article and aren't mentioned in it. These are classic reference department facts, and it's great that with infoboxes readers can quickly look them up without having to skim the article or even read the table of contents. I use these a lot on language and country articles. For example, when I need to know the ISO code for the Turkish language. My husband is often needing scientific parameters, like the heat capacity of carbon dioxide.
Given that experience and difficulty imagining a successful alternative, I'd lean toward affirmatively allowing these exceptions. Or maybe we actually want to stop universally discouraging this and instead identify certain classes of fact that actually we'd prefer not to repeat in the article? These technical facts are often found lower down in the infobox, often after a section divider. Maybe different guidance is needed for the first part of the infobox vs. the farther-down parts? What do you think? -- Beland ( talk) 07:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Is this an appropriate use of an infobox? The infobox is supposed to provide a summary of the article, but this infobox is just serving as a navigational tool between related articles. I know there are boxes that do this, particularly in series, but is it appropriate to use the infobox template for this purpose? – Pee Jay 06:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
<br>
to make lists and <small>...</small>
, which I've just fixed). I suppose you could just copy part of the contents of the main article's infobox into the sub-article's infobox, but I still don't understand why there are separate articles. --
RexxS (
talk)
09:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
An RFC at MOS:BIO is taking place, concerning ordinal jobtitles in bio infoboxes. Input would be welcomed, as it would affect this MOS. GoodDay ( talk) 02:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
All infoboxes have a column of parameters on the left, each followed by an equal '=' sign. Some have the equal sign immediately after the parameter, or following a single space, while others will have the equal signs placed after multiple spaces, so that they all align near the right side of the infobox. An example of the former can be seen at Template:Infobox ship, while an example of the latter ca be seen at Template:Infobox film. Is there a reason for this? Or does it occur randomly, as the preference of the template's author?
I ask because, it seems as of late, some editors have taken to manually moving (*or so it seems) all these equal signs over to the right, which just seems to add a lot of unnecessary spacing to the infobox, and the appearance of a significant amount of content being added in the page history. (* though one editor recently stated that this happens automatically when editing from a mobile device. Most of my edits are from a mobile and I've never seen this). Barring this claim, should there perhaps be a single standard, applied to all infoboxes and hopefully followed by editors thereafter? Thanks - wolf 04:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Do we have a policy / view / response to editors who make bulk edits to just change the infobox spacing? — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 09:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I have a query regarding a page that currently has two infoboxes in it ( Kingston bus stations) - and it has been queried that an page should only have one infobox. Given that this is a summary page of two bus stations in one geographical location (and individual pages would either be very short, not notable or both) - I query how best to include infoboxes in the article. Is it possible to merge two Template:Infobox station? Is having two infoboxes on a page acceptable? Do let me or the talk page know! :) Turini2 ( talk) 10:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
While I agree in principle with
WP:INFONAT, it does seems to assume that
birthright citizenship is common practice worldwide; there are, however, are many countries which do not follow this practice. In fact, it seems that most countries do not follow this practice which means that |birthplace=
may not always be the bst indicator of citizenship. Any opinions on this? --
Marchjuly (
talk)
02:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
I clarified this was intended for bio boxes. Obviously, it's fine to mention ethnicity in anthropological info boxes; {{ Infobox language}} and {{ Infobox ethnic group}} have long had 'ethnicity' and 'language' params to link to each other, given the relevance of ethnolinguistic identity to both, and the relevance of the ethnic population when assessing language endangerment. (Often for the ethnicity param we give a population estimate that can be compared to the population estimate for the language.) But was INFOBOXETH intended for more than just bio boxes? I don't want to narrow the restriction to the point that people can use my wording to get around it. — kwami ( talk) 00:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Tver Oblast | |
---|---|
Тверская область | |
Anthem: none [1] | |
Coordinates: 57°09′N 34°37′E / 57.150°N 34.617°E | |
Country | Russia |
Federal district | Central [2] |
Economic region | Central [3] |
Time zone | UTC+ ( [4]) |
Official languages | Russian [5] |
Vologda Oblast | |
---|---|
Вологодская область | |
Anthem: [1] | |
Coordinates: 60°05′N 40°27′E / 60.083°N 40.450°E | |
Country | Russia |
Federal district | Northwestern [2] |
Economic region | Northern [3] |
Time zone | UTC+ ( [4]) |
Official languages | Russian [5] |
Can infobox parameters be empty, but also have a citation listed? Or, is "none" appropriate for infoboxes? Requesting additional comments concerning this topic.
The article
Tver Oblast infobox lists the parameter anthem as "none." The infobox had a parameter with no content, just a citation. I removed the "citation" (which is more of a comment or footnote at best), and it was reverted by
User:Ymblanter because they believe it's useful. Essentially, another user added these "citations" long ago to some Russian oblast infoboxes to explain that an oblast anthem doesn't exist, but is permitted by law. Some oblast infoboxes listed "none" and then the citation, or just the citation. Some pages had these, some didn't. Some pages had actual oblast anthems, like
Ulyanovsk Oblast, which entirely makes sense in this case. But for the infoboxes like
Vologda Oblast,
Volgograd Oblast, and others, while there is no content for the parameter, there is a "citation" which explains why there isn't an anthem.
I have never seen this in any infoboxes on WP, and to illustrate the fact that there could be an anthem, but there isn't, all in the infobox makes no sense. I'm sure this is a violation of
MOS:INFOBOX, but as I explained to Ymblanter on their talk page, it's as if one needs to find a policy on adding periods at the end of a sentence. They stand by their ground that this is useful, and that we have differing opinions. To me, if the indication were that notable, then it would probably be worth noting somewhere in the article, but if the word "anthem" isn't even mentioned in the article at all, why would it be useful to understand that an anthem doesn't exist, but could, in the infobox. Seems very trivial to add any parameter to the infobox that isn't notable at all, or for something that doesn't exist. I understand how in some cases, "none" may be appropriate for some infobox parameters, but this doesn't seem like one of these cases.
TLDR, these anthems seem completely improper since the articles don't even mention anything about anthems, and the citations/footnotes are invoking a law explaining that an oblast anthem can exist. I may be in the wrong, but I'm seeking clarification. Thanks! --
PerpetuityGrat (
talk)
15:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
Jeff Hewitt | |
---|---|
Member of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors from the 5th district | |
Assumed office January 8, 2019 | |
Preceded by | Marion Ashley |
Member of the Libertarian National Committee from the 4th region | |
Assumed office April 2, 2016 | |
Preceded by | Daniel Wiener |
Mayor of Calimesa | |
In office December 11, 2015 – December 20, 2018 | |
Preceded by | Joyce McIntire |
Succeeded by | Bill Davis |
Member of the Calimesa City Council | |
In office December 7, 2010 – December 20, 2018 | |
Hello again, seeking more guidance here. Obviously, policies are not all-encompassing, but hoping to get some clarification here. Essentially, looking at the infobox for
Jeff Hewitt (politician). Long ago, I read some discussion somewhere that indicated that not all offices are needed for infoboxes, but can't find a policy on that. Is there one? Second, I read some discussion long ago indicating that mayorships (and don't even have to ask about municipal councilmemberships/commissioners) of cities that aren't large at all shouldn't be included in the infobox. Maybe I'm totally in the wrong, but seeking clarification.
To the right is the infobox for Hewitt (note: I scrubbed the personal details for brevity), and I recently removed the mayorship and councilmember offices from the infobox. The creator of the article said that they were verifiable offices and should be included. We had a less than constructive discussion on the talk page and nothing was resolved. Hoping to get some clarification. My rationale for removing the offices (from the infobox only) is that the city of
Calimesa barely has 10,000 residents, and therefore a the mayorship (and councilmembership) of the town shouldn't be included in the infobox. Obviously not advocating for the inclusion/exclusion of mayorships unilaterally. Obviously, depending on the municipality (the population, it's notability, etc.) sometimes including those offices in the infobox are appropriate, but I don't think they are here. The offices alone are not notable, but Hewitt obviously is not just some former mayor and he is notable given his other positions.
I am only speaking to the offices pertaining to the city of Calimesa, not the Libertarian Party of the Riverside County offices. Appreciate the input in advance, thanks! --
PerpetuityGrat (
talk)
02:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article. This is something that a LOT of inexperienced editors try to claim about notability, and it is plain wrong.
Maybe I'm totally in the wrong... yes, you are. Don't claim your position is supported by consensus if you're unable/unwilling to provide a link to the relevant discussion. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting § Bolding in non-lead infoboxes. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 09:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § System for handling possibly plural infobox parameters. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 23:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
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.
I've noticed a bunch of basketball BLPs that omit country of birth for US subjects and retain the nationality parameter. I've tried looking, but I can't find any guideline or consensus for this. Does anybody know if there's something that I'm missing? Cheers. – 2. O. Boxing 13:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Before the MOS change, we had projects that did not duplicate the country when it was consistent with the listed nationality. However, after the MOS change, we now have editors that blindly add country to the birthplace of "non-compliant" ibxs, sometimes while leaving the nationality in place, causing real redundancy. See this recent edit at Kareem Abdul Jabbar. — Bagumba ( talk) 02:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Most commonly, a new policy or guideline documents existing practices, rather than proposing a change to what experienced editors already choose to do.
With that background, please explain what "excuse" you were referring to?— Bagumba ( talk) 06:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Consensus has been determined that |nationality= or |citizenship= should not be used when the country would match that found in |birthplace= (Option 1).
|birth_place=
for Americans as an excuse to justify continuing to include nationality despite INFONAT. As noted, that presents a CONLEVEL problem. (And as noted, the cited edit to Jabbar is not consistent with INFONAT anyways).
Nikkimaria (
talk)
13:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
You systematically revert good faith edits...: Per WP:NPA:
Feel free to take your concerns to an appropriate noticeboard. Regards.— Bagumba ( talk) 00:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links.
Could someone please link the guideline that requires country to follow City, State (or City, Province)? It seems assumed that this is spelled out in WP:INFONAT, but it is not. Rikster2 ( talk) 01:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)\
|birth_place=
field is assumed to mean the entire birthplace because that is what it is called and how it is used in virtually all infoboxes. It is not called |birth_place_without_county=
or |partial_birthplace=
. The common understanding of what birthplace means, along with the rest of the language in INFONAT should make it clear that |nationality=
should not be used unless the nationality differs from the country of birth, as specified with birthplace. Actually, that quote does pretty much spell out that the country belongs in
|birthplace=
. Please stop trying to exploit a perceived loophole and accept project level consensus. The argument that if the country isn't already in the birthplace, it shouldn't be moved there and nationality can still be used is specious wikilawyering.
MB
03:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)|shortened_name=
or |name_without_middle_name=
or |common_name=
either, smart guy (I owuld have said "smart ass," but we are being
WP:CIVIL, here, right)?
Rikster2 (
talk)
13:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
the country of birth, as specified with birthplace. That says the country is to be specified in birthplace. For your interpretation to be accurate, it would have to read
the country of birth, IF specified with birthplace. The discussion was already linked above by Bagumba. MB 13:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Was very clearly labelled American before folks started removing nationality and replacing with country in the birthplace fieldis not an adequate reason to go against INFONAT, nor is it an adequate reason to leave it looking like the subject was a Georgian-born American. – 2. O. Boxing 14:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
For instance here. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I have a concern about including associated acts without their own Wikipedia article in infoboxes. What prompted this is the fact that, right now, TommyInnit has a "Slimecicle" as an associated act, but there is currently no existing article for such a person. I've seen instances of people removing associated acts without their own article, such as those on Cr1TiKaL's, but I can't find any guidelines pertaining to this. What do you people think I should do? L33tm4n ( talk) 21:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
|associated_acts=
has recently been removed from {{
Infobox musical artist}} and replaced with several better defined parameters.
MB
01:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Greetings. Can I ask whether there is any style guideline or policy which concerns linking to prefixes in biographical articles. The reason I ask is that it seems to be the common practise to do so but an editor on the Olivia Newton-John article has removed the info box link to Dame based on the guidelines on not linking to common terms. It doesn't seem obvious to me that "Dame" as a title is a "common term" for many or even most people. Any thoughts about this matter will be appreciated. Thanks, Afterwriting ( talk) 10:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Is there no guidance re the relationship of lead and infobox content ??? Both of them are to be summaries of the important items of the topic, but I was surprised nothing is said in either MOS:LEAD or MOS:IB about how they are to get along or a balance of their respective content.
The only guidance I saw in MOS:LEAD for infoboxes was a sidenote in the placement guidance MOS:LEADORDER : " Infoboxes contain summary information or an overview relating to the subject of the article, "
This interest came up from a TALK in Pound sterling noting the article starts with detailing of ISO code, abbreviation, symbols, and compound noun forms. To me this seemed poor narrative of redundant restating the Template:Infobox currency which is immediately alongside the lead. And almost all of the List of circulating currencies seem to start with the same sort of lead. It doesn't seem to be from a guidance of MOS:CURRENCY, or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, or a TALK in archives...
More than just currencies though, I am surprised there is not something at a general level talking about lead and infobox content... have I missed something ?
Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 14:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 |
I think we should also start discouraging the use of various ways of writing a single parameter. It encourages inconsistency and confusion. By that I mean templates shouldn't allow |birth_date=
, |BirthDate=
, |DateOfBirth=
, |date_of_birth=
, etc... eg stick with |birth_date=
, and editors should expect all templates accepting a date of birth to use that name. Right now we've got weird varieties of camel case in some templates and support/encouragement (via docs) for strange aliases in others.
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk)
19:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Please see this CfD discussion about ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Pages using deprecated image syntax. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 01:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I came across this deletion from an article‘s Infobox by Binksternet citing MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE “Avoid links to sections within the article” but the deleted link seemed to me to be useful to readers.
As best I can discover, the sentence “Avoid links to sections within the article ...” was added to the policy without discussion, either before or subsequently, by PL290 (who hasn’t been active here for almost 10 years, so I can’t discuss his reason for adding this sentence with him).
It seems to me that the link to list of episodes is useful to readers to show that such a list exists, and to allow a reader to jump straight to the list, irrespective of where the list is.
There could be other useful links from an Infobox to anchors within the article, whether sections or not, for example for significant works.
Unless there are objections I propose to delete this sentence from the policy.
Jim Craigie ( talk) 09:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
... and Template:Infobox television says only put a list article (a separate article) into that parameter— Bagumba ( talk) 10:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Agree I am agree with User:Jim Craigie, it seems we also need another consensus for {{ Infobox television}}. -- Editor-1 ( talk) 12:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Disagree Avoid
is a soft normative phrase. Avoiding intra-article links is a infobox best practice, not a hard rule. —
BillHPike (
talk,
contribs)
13:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Agree When I created the page List of One Piece media made the choice to include links to each section when listing the number of instalments of each piece of work, I personally found this to be helpful moreso than to try to link every single instalment themselves, the same format was carried over to List of Scooby-Doo media as well. ★Trekker ( talk) 13:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Agree I agree with Jim, this is something I've done in the past when linking to list of episodes and would continue to do it. Never even realized that the text mentioned above was in MOS:INFOBOX. I don't find it redundant. TheDoctorWho (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Disagree As this goes against MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. An infobox is not a mini-article and should only summarize key facts about the subject. Article navigation belongs in the TOC. MB 15:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Agree - I kind of agree and disagree. I think there are times when internal linking can be useful or necessary. For instances, for long running TV series it can be too much to link every starring role (if they hade a lot of change-over in that time) in addition to every producer, etc. etc. That can drive an infobox's length and become too much to read in a small space. In those cases, I see value in ignoring the rule and including a link that says "See below" for the appropriate section. Otherwise, you inevitably get people adding 30 names to an infobox because the section is there an empty. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Weak Agree - I don't see much of a downside, aside from potential minor redundancy with the TOC. I absolutely hate very long infoboxes that stretch halfway down the page, and this is a simple way to avoid that. As Billhpike pointed out, saying "avoid" doesn't make it a strict rule, more of a general suggestion. As such, if people want to challenge an edit where someone cited this one sentence to remove such a link from the infobox, they can do so on the article's talkpage and gain a consensus to re-add it. However, I know from experience with other infobox templates with similar cautionary lines that there will be people who don't interpret it that way and systematically make edits using this one line as their "proof", potentially making them unwilling to even engage in such a challenge. For that reason I support removing it or altering the current sentence to make it more clear that exceptions are allowed. Xfansd ( talk) 22:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Agree I agree with Jim, but feel editors should still be selective to what, if any, section links are included. As others have noted, such as Bignole, there are instances, particularly in television articles or media franchise articles, where section linking might be appropriate to direct readers to these locations, if they are not immediately aware that this content is solely housed in the section. Additionally, section headings may be worded slightly differently in which case the TOC would not be fully sufficient. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 01:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Mostly- Agree - the issue with infoboxes on franchise articles, sometimes become far too cluttered. When this happens, it is "overly"-detailed and becomes a table of contents. In franchise infoboxes, should there be installments in the different medium - it has proven useful to navigate the reader to the section that applies - instead of listing the same information that can be found in the TOC. For example: When a franchise has various and differing stars/producers/studios/etc., it's more concise and effective to direct a reader to the appropriate section.-- DisneyMetalhead ( talk) 23:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Strongly Disagree as per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. For the vast majority of articles, in-article links like this are completely pointless as the section is either level with the IB itself, or is at most "one scroll-screen" down. It's utterly pointless. And that's what a TOC is for. Reword it, maybe – but absolutely don't delete it from the MOS. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 15:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Disagree per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Yes there are cases where this is genuinely useful, but we all know that if allowed links will proliferate endlessly. I think discussion of this potentially rather significant change should be more widely advertised - perhaps an Rfc? Johnbod ( talk) 15:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I recently came across some feuding editors who had two opposing interpretations of this page. One side cited MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE in support of the claim that infoboxes should not have any facts which are not in the text of the article. The other side cited WP:INFOBOXREF in support of the claim that facts in the infobox but not in the article are allowed even if discouraged (otherwise there would not be a rule that facts in the infobox but not the article need a reference in the infobox.) It would probably help avoid such disputes in the future if this contradiction was resolved. (And maybe these sections need to cross-reference each other so they stay in sync?)
I've not considered this issue before, but personally I like the idea that an infobox can give a quick, orientating summary at a glace of the most important facts about a subject, and that the article text will amplify in more detail. This organizing principle helps scope what we might consider missing from the infobox. It's also nice that there's a standard layout so readers get use to the same info being in the same place, which is less true with prose. However, in practice I also see lots of infoboxes with minor, typically technical facts, that don't naturally fit anywhere in the article and aren't mentioned in it. These are classic reference department facts, and it's great that with infoboxes readers can quickly look them up without having to skim the article or even read the table of contents. I use these a lot on language and country articles. For example, when I need to know the ISO code for the Turkish language. My husband is often needing scientific parameters, like the heat capacity of carbon dioxide.
Given that experience and difficulty imagining a successful alternative, I'd lean toward affirmatively allowing these exceptions. Or maybe we actually want to stop universally discouraging this and instead identify certain classes of fact that actually we'd prefer not to repeat in the article? These technical facts are often found lower down in the infobox, often after a section divider. Maybe different guidance is needed for the first part of the infobox vs. the farther-down parts? What do you think? -- Beland ( talk) 07:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Is this an appropriate use of an infobox? The infobox is supposed to provide a summary of the article, but this infobox is just serving as a navigational tool between related articles. I know there are boxes that do this, particularly in series, but is it appropriate to use the infobox template for this purpose? – Pee Jay 06:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
<br>
to make lists and <small>...</small>
, which I've just fixed). I suppose you could just copy part of the contents of the main article's infobox into the sub-article's infobox, but I still don't understand why there are separate articles. --
RexxS (
talk)
09:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
An RFC at MOS:BIO is taking place, concerning ordinal jobtitles in bio infoboxes. Input would be welcomed, as it would affect this MOS. GoodDay ( talk) 02:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
All infoboxes have a column of parameters on the left, each followed by an equal '=' sign. Some have the equal sign immediately after the parameter, or following a single space, while others will have the equal signs placed after multiple spaces, so that they all align near the right side of the infobox. An example of the former can be seen at Template:Infobox ship, while an example of the latter ca be seen at Template:Infobox film. Is there a reason for this? Or does it occur randomly, as the preference of the template's author?
I ask because, it seems as of late, some editors have taken to manually moving (*or so it seems) all these equal signs over to the right, which just seems to add a lot of unnecessary spacing to the infobox, and the appearance of a significant amount of content being added in the page history. (* though one editor recently stated that this happens automatically when editing from a mobile device. Most of my edits are from a mobile and I've never seen this). Barring this claim, should there perhaps be a single standard, applied to all infoboxes and hopefully followed by editors thereafter? Thanks - wolf 04:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Do we have a policy / view / response to editors who make bulk edits to just change the infobox spacing? — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 09:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I have a query regarding a page that currently has two infoboxes in it ( Kingston bus stations) - and it has been queried that an page should only have one infobox. Given that this is a summary page of two bus stations in one geographical location (and individual pages would either be very short, not notable or both) - I query how best to include infoboxes in the article. Is it possible to merge two Template:Infobox station? Is having two infoboxes on a page acceptable? Do let me or the talk page know! :) Turini2 ( talk) 10:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
While I agree in principle with
WP:INFONAT, it does seems to assume that
birthright citizenship is common practice worldwide; there are, however, are many countries which do not follow this practice. In fact, it seems that most countries do not follow this practice which means that |birthplace=
may not always be the bst indicator of citizenship. Any opinions on this? --
Marchjuly (
talk)
02:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
I clarified this was intended for bio boxes. Obviously, it's fine to mention ethnicity in anthropological info boxes; {{ Infobox language}} and {{ Infobox ethnic group}} have long had 'ethnicity' and 'language' params to link to each other, given the relevance of ethnolinguistic identity to both, and the relevance of the ethnic population when assessing language endangerment. (Often for the ethnicity param we give a population estimate that can be compared to the population estimate for the language.) But was INFOBOXETH intended for more than just bio boxes? I don't want to narrow the restriction to the point that people can use my wording to get around it. — kwami ( talk) 00:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Tver Oblast | |
---|---|
Тверская область | |
Anthem: none [1] | |
Coordinates: 57°09′N 34°37′E / 57.150°N 34.617°E | |
Country | Russia |
Federal district | Central [2] |
Economic region | Central [3] |
Time zone | UTC+ ( [4]) |
Official languages | Russian [5] |
Vologda Oblast | |
---|---|
Вологодская область | |
Anthem: [1] | |
Coordinates: 60°05′N 40°27′E / 60.083°N 40.450°E | |
Country | Russia |
Federal district | Northwestern [2] |
Economic region | Northern [3] |
Time zone | UTC+ ( [4]) |
Official languages | Russian [5] |
Can infobox parameters be empty, but also have a citation listed? Or, is "none" appropriate for infoboxes? Requesting additional comments concerning this topic.
The article
Tver Oblast infobox lists the parameter anthem as "none." The infobox had a parameter with no content, just a citation. I removed the "citation" (which is more of a comment or footnote at best), and it was reverted by
User:Ymblanter because they believe it's useful. Essentially, another user added these "citations" long ago to some Russian oblast infoboxes to explain that an oblast anthem doesn't exist, but is permitted by law. Some oblast infoboxes listed "none" and then the citation, or just the citation. Some pages had these, some didn't. Some pages had actual oblast anthems, like
Ulyanovsk Oblast, which entirely makes sense in this case. But for the infoboxes like
Vologda Oblast,
Volgograd Oblast, and others, while there is no content for the parameter, there is a "citation" which explains why there isn't an anthem.
I have never seen this in any infoboxes on WP, and to illustrate the fact that there could be an anthem, but there isn't, all in the infobox makes no sense. I'm sure this is a violation of
MOS:INFOBOX, but as I explained to Ymblanter on their talk page, it's as if one needs to find a policy on adding periods at the end of a sentence. They stand by their ground that this is useful, and that we have differing opinions. To me, if the indication were that notable, then it would probably be worth noting somewhere in the article, but if the word "anthem" isn't even mentioned in the article at all, why would it be useful to understand that an anthem doesn't exist, but could, in the infobox. Seems very trivial to add any parameter to the infobox that isn't notable at all, or for something that doesn't exist. I understand how in some cases, "none" may be appropriate for some infobox parameters, but this doesn't seem like one of these cases.
TLDR, these anthems seem completely improper since the articles don't even mention anything about anthems, and the citations/footnotes are invoking a law explaining that an oblast anthem can exist. I may be in the wrong, but I'm seeking clarification. Thanks! --
PerpetuityGrat (
talk)
15:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
Jeff Hewitt | |
---|---|
Member of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors from the 5th district | |
Assumed office January 8, 2019 | |
Preceded by | Marion Ashley |
Member of the Libertarian National Committee from the 4th region | |
Assumed office April 2, 2016 | |
Preceded by | Daniel Wiener |
Mayor of Calimesa | |
In office December 11, 2015 – December 20, 2018 | |
Preceded by | Joyce McIntire |
Succeeded by | Bill Davis |
Member of the Calimesa City Council | |
In office December 7, 2010 – December 20, 2018 | |
Hello again, seeking more guidance here. Obviously, policies are not all-encompassing, but hoping to get some clarification here. Essentially, looking at the infobox for
Jeff Hewitt (politician). Long ago, I read some discussion somewhere that indicated that not all offices are needed for infoboxes, but can't find a policy on that. Is there one? Second, I read some discussion long ago indicating that mayorships (and don't even have to ask about municipal councilmemberships/commissioners) of cities that aren't large at all shouldn't be included in the infobox. Maybe I'm totally in the wrong, but seeking clarification.
To the right is the infobox for Hewitt (note: I scrubbed the personal details for brevity), and I recently removed the mayorship and councilmember offices from the infobox. The creator of the article said that they were verifiable offices and should be included. We had a less than constructive discussion on the talk page and nothing was resolved. Hoping to get some clarification. My rationale for removing the offices (from the infobox only) is that the city of
Calimesa barely has 10,000 residents, and therefore a the mayorship (and councilmembership) of the town shouldn't be included in the infobox. Obviously not advocating for the inclusion/exclusion of mayorships unilaterally. Obviously, depending on the municipality (the population, it's notability, etc.) sometimes including those offices in the infobox are appropriate, but I don't think they are here. The offices alone are not notable, but Hewitt obviously is not just some former mayor and he is notable given his other positions.
I am only speaking to the offices pertaining to the city of Calimesa, not the Libertarian Party of the Riverside County offices. Appreciate the input in advance, thanks! --
PerpetuityGrat (
talk)
02:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article. This is something that a LOT of inexperienced editors try to claim about notability, and it is plain wrong.
Maybe I'm totally in the wrong... yes, you are. Don't claim your position is supported by consensus if you're unable/unwilling to provide a link to the relevant discussion. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting § Bolding in non-lead infoboxes. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 09:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § System for handling possibly plural infobox parameters. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 23:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
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.
I've noticed a bunch of basketball BLPs that omit country of birth for US subjects and retain the nationality parameter. I've tried looking, but I can't find any guideline or consensus for this. Does anybody know if there's something that I'm missing? Cheers. – 2. O. Boxing 13:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Before the MOS change, we had projects that did not duplicate the country when it was consistent with the listed nationality. However, after the MOS change, we now have editors that blindly add country to the birthplace of "non-compliant" ibxs, sometimes while leaving the nationality in place, causing real redundancy. See this recent edit at Kareem Abdul Jabbar. — Bagumba ( talk) 02:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Most commonly, a new policy or guideline documents existing practices, rather than proposing a change to what experienced editors already choose to do.
With that background, please explain what "excuse" you were referring to?— Bagumba ( talk) 06:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Consensus has been determined that |nationality= or |citizenship= should not be used when the country would match that found in |birthplace= (Option 1).
|birth_place=
for Americans as an excuse to justify continuing to include nationality despite INFONAT. As noted, that presents a CONLEVEL problem. (And as noted, the cited edit to Jabbar is not consistent with INFONAT anyways).
Nikkimaria (
talk)
13:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
You systematically revert good faith edits...: Per WP:NPA:
Feel free to take your concerns to an appropriate noticeboard. Regards.— Bagumba ( talk) 00:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links.
Could someone please link the guideline that requires country to follow City, State (or City, Province)? It seems assumed that this is spelled out in WP:INFONAT, but it is not. Rikster2 ( talk) 01:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)\
|birth_place=
field is assumed to mean the entire birthplace because that is what it is called and how it is used in virtually all infoboxes. It is not called |birth_place_without_county=
or |partial_birthplace=
. The common understanding of what birthplace means, along with the rest of the language in INFONAT should make it clear that |nationality=
should not be used unless the nationality differs from the country of birth, as specified with birthplace. Actually, that quote does pretty much spell out that the country belongs in
|birthplace=
. Please stop trying to exploit a perceived loophole and accept project level consensus. The argument that if the country isn't already in the birthplace, it shouldn't be moved there and nationality can still be used is specious wikilawyering.
MB
03:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)|shortened_name=
or |name_without_middle_name=
or |common_name=
either, smart guy (I owuld have said "smart ass," but we are being
WP:CIVIL, here, right)?
Rikster2 (
talk)
13:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
the country of birth, as specified with birthplace. That says the country is to be specified in birthplace. For your interpretation to be accurate, it would have to read
the country of birth, IF specified with birthplace. The discussion was already linked above by Bagumba. MB 13:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Was very clearly labelled American before folks started removing nationality and replacing with country in the birthplace fieldis not an adequate reason to go against INFONAT, nor is it an adequate reason to leave it looking like the subject was a Georgian-born American. – 2. O. Boxing 14:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
For instance here. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I have a concern about including associated acts without their own Wikipedia article in infoboxes. What prompted this is the fact that, right now, TommyInnit has a "Slimecicle" as an associated act, but there is currently no existing article for such a person. I've seen instances of people removing associated acts without their own article, such as those on Cr1TiKaL's, but I can't find any guidelines pertaining to this. What do you people think I should do? L33tm4n ( talk) 21:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
|associated_acts=
has recently been removed from {{
Infobox musical artist}} and replaced with several better defined parameters.
MB
01:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Greetings. Can I ask whether there is any style guideline or policy which concerns linking to prefixes in biographical articles. The reason I ask is that it seems to be the common practise to do so but an editor on the Olivia Newton-John article has removed the info box link to Dame based on the guidelines on not linking to common terms. It doesn't seem obvious to me that "Dame" as a title is a "common term" for many or even most people. Any thoughts about this matter will be appreciated. Thanks, Afterwriting ( talk) 10:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Is there no guidance re the relationship of lead and infobox content ??? Both of them are to be summaries of the important items of the topic, but I was surprised nothing is said in either MOS:LEAD or MOS:IB about how they are to get along or a balance of their respective content.
The only guidance I saw in MOS:LEAD for infoboxes was a sidenote in the placement guidance MOS:LEADORDER : " Infoboxes contain summary information or an overview relating to the subject of the article, "
This interest came up from a TALK in Pound sterling noting the article starts with detailing of ISO code, abbreviation, symbols, and compound noun forms. To me this seemed poor narrative of redundant restating the Template:Infobox currency which is immediately alongside the lead. And almost all of the List of circulating currencies seem to start with the same sort of lead. It doesn't seem to be from a guidance of MOS:CURRENCY, or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, or a TALK in archives...
More than just currencies though, I am surprised there is not something at a general level talking about lead and infobox content... have I missed something ?
Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 14:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)