![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Discussions archived from a
deleted page — do not modify
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Questions and answersChedAre we supposed to discuss and talk here on the talk page? Or are you hoping others will edit the main/user page? — Ched : ? 10:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Are infoboxes useful?Yes, I think they can be, when they provide different information or pull together salient points (often with wikilinks) that are scattered through the article and are hard to find for readers that do not want to read the entire article. However, when most of the items in the infobox merely repeat points generally found in the first paragraph of the lead, then I think they are more of a distraction than an aid. -- Robert.Allen ( talk) 23:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
It does something for me, a human readerRe: Talk:José Carlos Cocarelli#Box Answering here, because it might be of broader interest than a talk page of a less prominent pianist, where I said bout the infobox: It does something for me, a human reader, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
"Ausgabe" info and the other boxAt Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Lead for Mozart masses I suggested to postpone re-opening discussions on the infoboxes for Mozart masses. Well, here I am back, also explaining one of the reasons I wanted to postpone then: at Talk:List of masses by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart#Jack's riddle: the solution I had suggested to include the AMA/NMA info in the box, which was executed for the model boxes shown here and here. ...which made me realise there are some problems:
Prior to fathoming the impact of what has been called infobox-wars, I had invented something else to overcome these difficulties, which you can see here: {{ Schubert scores}}. The box is currently shown in
Such box also replaces the {{ IMSLP2}} template in these articles: the advantage being that the IMSLP template refers only to the linked score as if there was no other one, not even close to drawing attention that the AMA/AGA scores on that website maybe have lost their "commercial" value, but also by definition have missed out on over a century of scholarship. The "scores" template on the other hand puts it all together. You can see Schubert's autograph of the entire piece via a direct link (when available), the 19th century publication date of the AGA version is given before the link at IMSLP, all Urtext editions can be linked, including the Bärenreiter/NSE one.
I'd like to work out a particular example of this: the third entry of the scores box in the D 279 article: until recently D 309A was "deest". Bärenreiter claims to have been the first to publish it. Now it is possible to purchase that publication (only 219,00 € ...). But here's what Wikipedia can do: give a direct link to how Schubert wrote it down, so you can see for yourself whether or not you want to have a paper version of that score. And links to both the website where a facsimile copy can be bought, and the Bärenreiter publication. No discrimination among those providing a printed version of the score (neither among those that offer a downloadable version free or otherwise, not giving the impression the "free" ones are the only ones worth linking to). Also the fourth entry of that same box, on D 346, is interesting. Schubert's autograph leaves the piece unfinished. So nor the autographs website, nor AGA/NSE add a note to that. There are a few notable completions (discussed in various reliable sources). The scores box allows links to where the scores of these completions can be obtained, along the links to the unfinished versions offered by OAW/AGA/NSE. All sorts of things not possible with the very confining IMSLP2 template. Now here's the catch. The Schubert scores template didn't go down very well:
So I put the whole idea on hold until... I realized the AMA/NMA additions to infoboxes were not part of a better solution either. In short, two things:
Arguments against infoboxesIn discussions about infobox I meet arguments against infoboxes that I find debatable. Some occur regularly, some less frequently. My response is to how I understand the argument, which may differ from how it was intended. The first comment is mine, feel free to add. undue"I have no objection per se to boxes for compositions, so long as they conform to WP:UNDUE."
summary"An infobox is supposed to summarise the article." not needed"An infobox is not needed for this article."
redundant"The infobox ... would contain only redundant information."
barrier"It also presents a barrier to new contributors."
default status quo"We default to the status quo"
discussed before"This was discussed back in ..."
misrepresentation"It misrepresents the content of the article."
future misrepresentation"It is absolutely certain that once an infobox is in place, editors will try to extend the detail, adding stuff likely to mislead or misrepresent."
image size"The image that goes at the top is reduced to a size that completely obviates its function and ruins the visual effect."
wasted space"The box would waste space at the top of article."
attention"The reader's attention should be directed immediately into the key information of the article, which is well-presented in the lead."
lazy reader"They cater for the lazy reader."
ugly"Infoboxes are ... aesthetically ugly. ... Let's not add another eyesore to another beautifully crafted article."
author"We as the authors want people to read our contributions which we have written and researched for many months."
no education"To encourage readers to simply rely on the text within the infobox, does nothing for the potential educational values which our articles have to offer."
contentious"Infoboxes are frequently contentious."
distracting"The new infobox opera is distracting."
seems"The new infobox opera seems to me clunky, intrusive, pointless ..."
pattern"It's part of the tabular, caption-plus-content pattern of infoboxes."
not for newcomer"It doesn't help the opera newcomer understand what Rigoletto is."
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC) I made the former list to prose, for easier linking. Note that I didn't touch the topics metadata ad microformats. I detailed explanation of microformats emitted by an infobox is presented by RexxS on Talk:Mont Juic (suite). -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC) unneccessaryedit summary
Open for discussionChopinInfobox added by a new user, reverted and discussed, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC) Older casesOrlando furioso, Motezuma (March 2013) By others: Isaac Stern (2008) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC) Infoboxes for discussionCompare articles, with infobox and withoutThe following sortable table shows several infoboxes which are/were installed or suggested recently (mostly in 2013) and are under debate. The table is not comprehensive, additions are welcome. Infoboxes include the types {{ infobox person}}, {{ infobox musician}}, {{ infobox artwork}}, {{ infobox organization}}, {{ infobox Bach composition}} (short: Bach), {{ infobox musical composition}} (short: musical), {{ infobox opera}}, {{ infobox church}}. "Successful" infoboxes, installed by a principle author of an article and unquestioned, such as most works by Johann Sebastian Bach, are not listed, but those of his works where the infobox was not kept unchanged. Infoboxes that were liked by authors, such as the Schubert masses, are also not shown. Reactions to added infoboxes range from a complete revert to collapsing of sections, shortening by deletion of parameters or information, and discussion. The latter is wanted. It can be improved by leaving an infobox in place for a certain minimum time, to also gain input from readers. One aspect of the following table may be to look at the (sometimes amazingly short) time between installation of an infobox and its revert. The table entries are sorted by date of installation/suggestion of an infobox but can be sorted by other fields. Table of debated infoboxes DiscussionsSome discussions need a closer view:
Compare articles, with infobox and without The following table establishes an easy comparison of articles where infobox are debated, showing them with and without infobox. If the infobox is in the present version, please help yourself to a version without it (in imagination or history). Sometimes a shortened/collapsed state is also shown, especially if it is the present version. In some case, the column shows a comparable example of a successful infobox.
Table II of debated infoboxesThe following sortable (not comprehensive) table shows several infoboxes that are or were under debate, {{ infobox person}}, {{ infobox Bach composition}} (short: Bach), {{ infobox musical composition}} (short: composition), {{ infobox opera}} . Reactions to added infoboxes range from a complete revert to collapsing of sections, shortening by deletion of parameters or information, and discussion. The latter is wanted. It can be improved by leaving an infobox in place for a certain minimum time, to also gain input from readers. The table entries are sorted by date of installation/suggestion of an infobox but can be sorted by other fields. The background colour is red when no infobox is present. If you find that the state is not up to date, please change. As of 7 September 2014, there are 70 transclusions of {{ infobox opera}}, 175 of {{ infobox Bach composition}}, and 187 of {{ infobox musical composition}}. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC) As of 5 October 2014, there are 75 transclusions of infobox opera, 184 of Bach and 196 of composition. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC) Table of inclusions of musical composition infoboxes
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Invitations postedThus far following invitations have been posted:
I propose every on- or off-wiki invitation to the current debate be logged here. Invitations may need to be scrutinized by an uninvolved admin in view of WP:CANVASS#Inappropriate notification: for invitations not logged here that could very likely mean a dramaboard-like development for instance at WP:ANI (which I'd avoid). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 12:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC); Updated 13:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Moved material and restoredOne user moved the entire contents of this page to another users's userspace without consensus. This screwed up a lot of links at other pages and caused general disruption. I have restored this material. Now discuss. Montanabw (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Page layoutI prefer the new discussion at the top of the page, as long as the old userfied content is doubled here. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Anyway I'm not going to put my thoughts under a text that on the top of the page starts with "The following thoughts were initiated by Gerda Arendt ( talk · contribs) ..." My thoughts shouldn't be usurped by anyone, tx. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Moved from main page-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 11:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Issue 1: visibility of infoboxes in generated PDFSee [4] — should this issue be raised in the wider community discussion on infoboxes? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 11:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Infoboxes are printed when the article is printed, so it nonsense to suggest that there is a problem with printing. It is true that creating a downloadable pdf of an article omits the infobox, but the solution is to amend the routine that excludes the infobox (or better to give the downloader the choice). Infoboxes are far too useful (see
Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes #Benefits of infoboxes to be ripping them out of articles merely because of their exclusion from downloaded pdfs. --
RexxS (
talk)
19:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
On reflection, I assume that the reference to printing is this: there is software available that 'prints' to a pdf file on disc, rather than to paper on a printer. Examples include PrimoPDF, Print-to-PDF, CutePDF and many more. If anyone wants a pdf of the article that includes the infobox, they can simply use one of those free programs to produce a pdf that contains everything that would be printed onto paper - and that includes the infobox, of course. I think you're imagining a problem that simply does not exist. -- RexxS ( talk) 20:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Generally, I'd recommend participants in this discussion to give up WP:BATTLEGROUND attitudes, per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Editors reminded (remedy five of the arbcom case). About the issue discussed in this talk page section I suppose at least two routes can be explored, probably best both:
I'm no supporter of the attitude of "denial" either, suggesting there's no problem, and anyone should know (how?) that the PDF-generating software provided by Wikipedia shouldn't be used etc. I regard that as a non-constructive attitude, akin to battleground attitude. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Further continuation of discussions in Wikipedia: and Wikipedia talk: namespaces
|
![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Discussions archived from a
deleted page — do not modify
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Questions and answersChedAre we supposed to discuss and talk here on the talk page? Or are you hoping others will edit the main/user page? — Ched : ? 10:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Are infoboxes useful?Yes, I think they can be, when they provide different information or pull together salient points (often with wikilinks) that are scattered through the article and are hard to find for readers that do not want to read the entire article. However, when most of the items in the infobox merely repeat points generally found in the first paragraph of the lead, then I think they are more of a distraction than an aid. -- Robert.Allen ( talk) 23:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
It does something for me, a human readerRe: Talk:José Carlos Cocarelli#Box Answering here, because it might be of broader interest than a talk page of a less prominent pianist, where I said bout the infobox: It does something for me, a human reader, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
"Ausgabe" info and the other boxAt Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Lead for Mozart masses I suggested to postpone re-opening discussions on the infoboxes for Mozart masses. Well, here I am back, also explaining one of the reasons I wanted to postpone then: at Talk:List of masses by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart#Jack's riddle: the solution I had suggested to include the AMA/NMA info in the box, which was executed for the model boxes shown here and here. ...which made me realise there are some problems:
Prior to fathoming the impact of what has been called infobox-wars, I had invented something else to overcome these difficulties, which you can see here: {{ Schubert scores}}. The box is currently shown in
Such box also replaces the {{ IMSLP2}} template in these articles: the advantage being that the IMSLP template refers only to the linked score as if there was no other one, not even close to drawing attention that the AMA/AGA scores on that website maybe have lost their "commercial" value, but also by definition have missed out on over a century of scholarship. The "scores" template on the other hand puts it all together. You can see Schubert's autograph of the entire piece via a direct link (when available), the 19th century publication date of the AGA version is given before the link at IMSLP, all Urtext editions can be linked, including the Bärenreiter/NSE one.
I'd like to work out a particular example of this: the third entry of the scores box in the D 279 article: until recently D 309A was "deest". Bärenreiter claims to have been the first to publish it. Now it is possible to purchase that publication (only 219,00 € ...). But here's what Wikipedia can do: give a direct link to how Schubert wrote it down, so you can see for yourself whether or not you want to have a paper version of that score. And links to both the website where a facsimile copy can be bought, and the Bärenreiter publication. No discrimination among those providing a printed version of the score (neither among those that offer a downloadable version free or otherwise, not giving the impression the "free" ones are the only ones worth linking to). Also the fourth entry of that same box, on D 346, is interesting. Schubert's autograph leaves the piece unfinished. So nor the autographs website, nor AGA/NSE add a note to that. There are a few notable completions (discussed in various reliable sources). The scores box allows links to where the scores of these completions can be obtained, along the links to the unfinished versions offered by OAW/AGA/NSE. All sorts of things not possible with the very confining IMSLP2 template. Now here's the catch. The Schubert scores template didn't go down very well:
So I put the whole idea on hold until... I realized the AMA/NMA additions to infoboxes were not part of a better solution either. In short, two things:
Arguments against infoboxesIn discussions about infobox I meet arguments against infoboxes that I find debatable. Some occur regularly, some less frequently. My response is to how I understand the argument, which may differ from how it was intended. The first comment is mine, feel free to add. undue"I have no objection per se to boxes for compositions, so long as they conform to WP:UNDUE."
summary"An infobox is supposed to summarise the article." not needed"An infobox is not needed for this article."
redundant"The infobox ... would contain only redundant information."
barrier"It also presents a barrier to new contributors."
default status quo"We default to the status quo"
discussed before"This was discussed back in ..."
misrepresentation"It misrepresents the content of the article."
future misrepresentation"It is absolutely certain that once an infobox is in place, editors will try to extend the detail, adding stuff likely to mislead or misrepresent."
image size"The image that goes at the top is reduced to a size that completely obviates its function and ruins the visual effect."
wasted space"The box would waste space at the top of article."
attention"The reader's attention should be directed immediately into the key information of the article, which is well-presented in the lead."
lazy reader"They cater for the lazy reader."
ugly"Infoboxes are ... aesthetically ugly. ... Let's not add another eyesore to another beautifully crafted article."
author"We as the authors want people to read our contributions which we have written and researched for many months."
no education"To encourage readers to simply rely on the text within the infobox, does nothing for the potential educational values which our articles have to offer."
contentious"Infoboxes are frequently contentious."
distracting"The new infobox opera is distracting."
seems"The new infobox opera seems to me clunky, intrusive, pointless ..."
pattern"It's part of the tabular, caption-plus-content pattern of infoboxes."
not for newcomer"It doesn't help the opera newcomer understand what Rigoletto is."
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC) I made the former list to prose, for easier linking. Note that I didn't touch the topics metadata ad microformats. I detailed explanation of microformats emitted by an infobox is presented by RexxS on Talk:Mont Juic (suite). -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC) unneccessaryedit summary
Open for discussionChopinInfobox added by a new user, reverted and discussed, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC) Older casesOrlando furioso, Motezuma (March 2013) By others: Isaac Stern (2008) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC) Infoboxes for discussionCompare articles, with infobox and withoutThe following sortable table shows several infoboxes which are/were installed or suggested recently (mostly in 2013) and are under debate. The table is not comprehensive, additions are welcome. Infoboxes include the types {{ infobox person}}, {{ infobox musician}}, {{ infobox artwork}}, {{ infobox organization}}, {{ infobox Bach composition}} (short: Bach), {{ infobox musical composition}} (short: musical), {{ infobox opera}}, {{ infobox church}}. "Successful" infoboxes, installed by a principle author of an article and unquestioned, such as most works by Johann Sebastian Bach, are not listed, but those of his works where the infobox was not kept unchanged. Infoboxes that were liked by authors, such as the Schubert masses, are also not shown. Reactions to added infoboxes range from a complete revert to collapsing of sections, shortening by deletion of parameters or information, and discussion. The latter is wanted. It can be improved by leaving an infobox in place for a certain minimum time, to also gain input from readers. One aspect of the following table may be to look at the (sometimes amazingly short) time between installation of an infobox and its revert. The table entries are sorted by date of installation/suggestion of an infobox but can be sorted by other fields. Table of debated infoboxes DiscussionsSome discussions need a closer view:
Compare articles, with infobox and without The following table establishes an easy comparison of articles where infobox are debated, showing them with and without infobox. If the infobox is in the present version, please help yourself to a version without it (in imagination or history). Sometimes a shortened/collapsed state is also shown, especially if it is the present version. In some case, the column shows a comparable example of a successful infobox.
Table II of debated infoboxesThe following sortable (not comprehensive) table shows several infoboxes that are or were under debate, {{ infobox person}}, {{ infobox Bach composition}} (short: Bach), {{ infobox musical composition}} (short: composition), {{ infobox opera}} . Reactions to added infoboxes range from a complete revert to collapsing of sections, shortening by deletion of parameters or information, and discussion. The latter is wanted. It can be improved by leaving an infobox in place for a certain minimum time, to also gain input from readers. The table entries are sorted by date of installation/suggestion of an infobox but can be sorted by other fields. The background colour is red when no infobox is present. If you find that the state is not up to date, please change. As of 7 September 2014, there are 70 transclusions of {{ infobox opera}}, 175 of {{ infobox Bach composition}}, and 187 of {{ infobox musical composition}}. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC) As of 5 October 2014, there are 75 transclusions of infobox opera, 184 of Bach and 196 of composition. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC) Table of inclusions of musical composition infoboxes
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Invitations postedThus far following invitations have been posted:
I propose every on- or off-wiki invitation to the current debate be logged here. Invitations may need to be scrutinized by an uninvolved admin in view of WP:CANVASS#Inappropriate notification: for invitations not logged here that could very likely mean a dramaboard-like development for instance at WP:ANI (which I'd avoid). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 12:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC); Updated 13:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Moved material and restoredOne user moved the entire contents of this page to another users's userspace without consensus. This screwed up a lot of links at other pages and caused general disruption. I have restored this material. Now discuss. Montanabw (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Page layoutI prefer the new discussion at the top of the page, as long as the old userfied content is doubled here. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Anyway I'm not going to put my thoughts under a text that on the top of the page starts with "The following thoughts were initiated by Gerda Arendt ( talk · contribs) ..." My thoughts shouldn't be usurped by anyone, tx. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Moved from main page-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 11:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Issue 1: visibility of infoboxes in generated PDFSee [4] — should this issue be raised in the wider community discussion on infoboxes? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 11:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Infoboxes are printed when the article is printed, so it nonsense to suggest that there is a problem with printing. It is true that creating a downloadable pdf of an article omits the infobox, but the solution is to amend the routine that excludes the infobox (or better to give the downloader the choice). Infoboxes are far too useful (see
Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes #Benefits of infoboxes to be ripping them out of articles merely because of their exclusion from downloaded pdfs. --
RexxS (
talk)
19:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
On reflection, I assume that the reference to printing is this: there is software available that 'prints' to a pdf file on disc, rather than to paper on a printer. Examples include PrimoPDF, Print-to-PDF, CutePDF and many more. If anyone wants a pdf of the article that includes the infobox, they can simply use one of those free programs to produce a pdf that contains everything that would be printed onto paper - and that includes the infobox, of course. I think you're imagining a problem that simply does not exist. -- RexxS ( talk) 20:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Generally, I'd recommend participants in this discussion to give up WP:BATTLEGROUND attitudes, per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Editors reminded (remedy five of the arbcom case). About the issue discussed in this talk page section I suppose at least two routes can be explored, probably best both:
I'm no supporter of the attitude of "denial" either, suggesting there's no problem, and anyone should know (how?) that the PDF-generating software provided by Wikipedia shouldn't be used etc. I regard that as a non-constructive attitude, akin to battleground attitude. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Further continuation of discussions in Wikipedia: and Wikipedia talk: namespaces
|