Content deleted Content added
→Rfc for infobox: Reply |
m Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30) |
||
| (47 intermediate revisions by 31 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{talkheader}}
{{Article history
|action1=GAN
|action1date=10:29, 24 December 2010
Line 19:
|action3oldid=820432477
|currentstatus=FA
|maindate=3 February 2019
|otd1date=2017-11-04|otd1oldid=808655744
|otd2date=2020-11-04|otd2oldid=987084313
|otd3date=2022-11-04|otd3oldid=1119935935
|otd4date=2023-09-16|otd4oldid=1175700209
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|living=no|collapsed=yes|class=FA|vital=yes|listas=Mendelssohn, Felix|1=
{{WikiProject Biography|a&e-work-group=yes|musician-work-group=yes |musician-priority=High}}
▲{{WikiProject Germany|class=FA|importance=High|Hamburg=yes |HamburgImp=Mid}}
▲{{WikiProject Christianity|class=FA|importance=mid|lutheranism=yes|lutheranism-importance=Top}}
▲{{WikiProject Composers|class=FA}}
▲{{WikiProject Opera|class=FA}}
▲{{WikiProject Judaism|class=FA|importance=mid}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(90d)
Line 51 ⟶ 44:
}}
__TOC__
== Infobox ==
Line 98 ⟶ 85:
== Rfc for infobox ==
{{atop|1='''Consensus to include infobox'''. Numbers are in favour of infobox, though of course this is not the primary consideration. Supporters essentially argue that the infobox would be useful in providing information to readers, while opposers argue that the infobox would not be useful because the readers could read the information elsewhere, like the lede. However, it is not up to us to control how our readers read, they may choose to read the lede first, or the infobox first, it is up to them. I thank Isaidnoway for providing [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Which_parts_of_an_article_do_readers_read#Eyetracking evidence] to evaluate the situation. Isaidnoway quotes that {{tq|readers tended to look first at the table of contents, then at the article's infobox}}. That seems to indicate that an infobox is indeed useful and read even before the lede. The research cited also stated that {{tq|the lead and the infobox contain only 17% and 4% of the links of an article, they receive 32% and 18% of clicks, respectively}} - indicating that (1) infoboxes are useful, and (2) infoboxes have an even more disproportionate positive impact on readers than ledes, relative to their size. Therefore the strength of supporters arguments are stronger in light of the evidence. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|exalt]])''' 01:36, 11 August 2023 (UTC)}}
▲{{rfc|bio|hist|media|soc|rfcid=D2CE3CE}} Since there’s a discussion going on about this currently, should this article have an infobox? [[User:Dantus21|Dantus21]] ([[User talk:Dantus21|talk]]) 22:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
*You really should read [[WP:RFCBEFORE]]: “{{tq|Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page.}}” Given the discussion has been open less than 24 hours, it has hardly been discussed at all, let alone “thoroughly”. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 22:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
* {{sbb}} Agree with SchroCat. I would support a '''procedural close''' of this Rfc for failure to observe [[WP:RFCBEFORE]]. [[User:Dantus21|Dantus21]], you have the [[WP:RFCCLOSE|option to ''withdraw'' this Rfc]] on your own, without having to go through any channels to do so. If you wish to do that, just reply, "I withdraw this Rfc" below, and someone will remove the Rfc header above. You don't have to do that—it's just an option available to you, but that would be my recommendation. Cheers, [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 23:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Line 114 ⟶ 101:
# '''Yes''', infoboxes are an integral part of Wikipedia; the decision to have them has been taken at a level way above this RfC. This RfC is only valid if there are particular reasons why the Mendelssohn article needs special consideration, and cannot be treated similarly to [[Johann Sebastian Bach]] for example. If this is a ''general'' conflict between those who like infoboxes (broadly) and those who think they're (generally) a waste of space, it should be closed at once and replaced by a proper RfC on the wider question. Otherwise it is an attempt to stifle an acknowledged, acceptable Wikipedia device in a normal article, and that's plain wrong. [[User:Elemimele|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele|talk]]) 20:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
#:There ''was'' an RfC and it ended non consensus (primarily, I think, because a broad rule looks bad in a vacuum and the people most passionate about such an RfC are the vocal minority opposing infoboxes) [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 22:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
#::I see no consensuses amongst the individual RfC's either; every one of them is the same arguments repeated, and the closes are more-or-less random depending on the closer's feelings about how close a vote must be before it's declared no consensus. It is a prodigious waste of time running all these RfC's when each is really just a random draw from a population of box-haters and box-lovers. Some of the closes that do have a consensus also add that consensus can change, inviting those who dislike the consensus to re-toss the coin and get a different random result. I applaud {{u|Nemov}} for having a bash at sorting it out; I don't have the energy. [[User:Elemimele|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele|talk]]) 17:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
#:::Aye, it’s like freakin’ US Supreme Court decisions. Is there some way to like, poll ''as many users as possible'' on this? [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 22:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
# '''Yes''', alternative forms of presentation of information and informational aids improve accessibility, infoboxes are one good example of this. —[[User:Siroxo|siro]][[User talk:Siroxo|''χ'']][[Special:Contributions/Siroxo|o]] 20:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
#'''yes''' are we seriously still relying on decade-old signpost articles, single-editor opinions, outdated “house rules” made up by wikiprojects, and nonsense arguments like “it oversimplifies things” or “they’re just bad” to justify blocking a common, harmless, useful augmentation to articles? [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 22:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
#'''Yes.''' <small>(Found this discussion via the village pump)</small> An infobox enables us to add an easily identifiable link to [[List of compositions by Felix Mendelssohn]], and would allow for easier identification of quick biographical facts like death age and birth/death locations. (While the current version of the lead includes Mendelssohn's death age in the parenthetical statement with his vital dates, this feels like an awkward solution that's misaligned with Wikipedia's usual house style, so holding the death age in an infobox would be a meaningful improvement in my view.) [[User:ModernDayTrilobite|ModernDayTrilobite]] ([[User talk:ModernDayTrilobite|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ModernDayTrilobite|contribs]]) 15:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
#{{sbb}} '''Yes''' per {{u|Nemov}}. The infobox is almost a Wikipedia trademark at this point. I personally have been looking at the infobox before the lead since before my voice cracked, when I used Wikipedia to write little presentations for my 6th grade social sciences class (good days, eh?). I am heavily in favor of an assumption in favor of infoboxes unless proven otherwise, because they're just plain ''useful''. <span style="border:1px solid;padding:2px 6px;font-variant:small-caps">'''〜 [[User:Festucalex|<span style="color:#3cb400">Festucalex</span>]] • [[User talk:Festucalex|<span style="color:#ff007f">talk</span>]]'''</span> 18:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
# '''Yes'''. As a text person, I'm not ''personally'' a big fan of infoboxes, and I do wonder if some of the existing use of them is more a matter of inertia and the known tendency of tables and templates to resist removal once added. But I think the accessibility point raised above is crucial: some readers will have an easier time reading text and some will have an easier time with the infobox format, so it's good to make both readily available. Also, given that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and only incidentally a website, it seems beneficial to offer data in formats that maximize the different opportunities for downstream use, so that anyone who wants to can create an infobox-free Wikipedia mirror, or for that matter an infobox-only one. While the local consensus of editors is always important, the use of infoboxes has become such a standard practice that I, at least, would need to see some argument about the ''unique'' features of this article to feel justified weighing a one-article consensus against infoboxes more heavily than what has become a broad edit-consensus in favor of them. -- [[User:Visviva|Visviva]] ([[User talk:Visviva|talk]]) 02:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
#'''Yes'''. Why should one biography article have an infobox while another doesn't? There is nothing bad about infoboxes; they provide useful summaries and basic data. I have seen no convincing argument in favour of excluding the infobox. [[User:Edward-Woodrow|Edward-Woodrow]] :) <sub><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Edward-Woodrow|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sub> 11:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
#'''Yes''' per {{u|Nemov}}. This is standard practice for biographies. [[User:Graham11|Graham]] ([[User talk:Graham11|talk]]) 02:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
#'''Yes''', and I don't want to rehash the arguments put forth above; there are great points that I agree completely with. An infobox is useful. [[User:SWinxy|SWinxy]] ([[User talk:SWinxy|talk]]) 03:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
#'''Yes''': Enough! This is getting ridiculous! [[User:Ravpapa|Ravpapa]] ([[User talk:Ravpapa|talk]]) 05:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
#'''Yes'''. Standardized presentation of information is valuable to a lot of readers. There are pages for which an infobox might be unsuitable, but I don't see how this is one. I realize this is a general argument for infoboxes, not one specific to this page, but that's what both sides of these debates almost always boil down to. --[[User:Tserton|Tserton]] ([[User talk:Tserton|talk]]) 12:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
#'''Yes''': To the idea (posted among the no votes below) that Wikipedia is not a database, I strongly disagree. Anyone who works with Wikidata recognizes that WP being only a "literary" work is holding a very obsolete point of view. There are articles in WP that are essentially using Wikidata. The point of Infoboxes is not just a summary of information, but to be able to harmonize what information and how it is presented among all language Wikipedias. Thus the infobox is not just a summary but a structural part of the encylopedia. - [[User:Kosboot|kosboot]] ([[User talk:Kosboot|talk]]) 13:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
#'''Yes''' Infoboxes improve an article because they, by definition per [[WP:MOS/Infoboxes]], {{tq|summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article.}} The votes opposing this standard improvement fail to provide a '''WP policy''' that explains why an infobox for this biography would be contrary to common practice or WP standards. [[User:Penguino35|Penguino35]] ([[User talk:Penguino35|talk]]) 23:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
#'''Yes''' (Brought here by the RFC noticeboard) The infobox is a staple for summarizing key information. Also I agree with everything @Penguino35 has said above about [[MOS:INFOBOXES]]. I can't fathom why any editor would object, but I suppose we all are open to our opinions. [[User:MaximusEditor|MaximusEditor]] ([[User talk:MaximusEditor|talk]]) 03:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
#'''Yes''' - This shouldn't need an RFC. Infoboxes are not mandatory, but not removing content from articles without a good reason (and "I don't like Infoboxes" is not one) is just bad behaviour. I'm getting heavy [[WP:OWN]] vibes from the people who think that "their" article cannot have an infobox (at this point, part of the house style of Wikipedia) just because they say so and it has not had one until now. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 07:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
#'''Yes''', infoboxes are useful and make articles easier to read at a glance.--[[User:Ortizesp|Ortizesp]] ([[User talk:Ortizesp|talk]]) 06:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
===No===
#The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Felix_Mendelssohn&oldid=1165547043 proposed infobox] takes up prime real estate at the top of the page with little benefit. It adds two kinds of information: (1) info that is already immensely prominent in the first two sentences of the lead (name, birth/date dates, occupation), and (2) information that isn't in the lead because it's not important enough to be featured at the top of the article (birth place, death place, the nation Leipzig was in at the time of his death, and his signature). Enshrining that information in an infobox just takes up for (in my opinion) little payoff. [[User:Ajpolino|Ajpolino]] ([[User talk:Ajpolino|talk]]) 01:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
#'''No''' — it is not an improvement to the article, and it doesn't help me have a better understanding of the subject matter. And the link referenced up above to; [[m:Research:Which parts of an article do readers read|Research:Which parts of an article do readers read]], does not say — {{tq|Data analysis of Wikipedia articles show that users find the information contained in the infobox valuable}}. One of the things it does say in the [[m:Research:Which parts of an article do readers read#Eyetracking|eyetracking]] section is; {{!xt|A main finding was that readers tended to '''look first at the table of contents''', then at the article's infobox}}. So looking at the {{oldid|Felix Mendelssohn|1165547043|proposed infobox}}, are we really providing the reader with any valuable information (born, died, occupation) that can't be ''easily found'' in the lead sentence, along with his best known works (all wikilinked). The research article also indicates in the [[m:Research:Which parts of an article do readers read#Links clicked|links clicked]] section that; {{!xt|data estimated that wikilinks located in the '''lead section''' receive between 26% and 43% of the clicks on wikilinks}}. Furthermore, if a reader is using Google search ''before'' they even decide to come to Wikipedia, all that basic biographical info is provided in their snippet, along with a Wikipedia link to 'list of compositions', so what new information are we giving them in the proposed infobox that they haven't already digested, in that likely scenario. I'm not seeing any compelling reason to change the long-standing 21-year-old existing consensus '''not to include one'''.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:green">''(talk)''</b>]] 04:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
#'''No'''. Almost every yes !vote amounts to "I like infoboxes". Am I supposed to do better than "I don't like infoboxes"? Infoboxes compete with the article text. We are an encyclopedia, not a database. Rarely are infoboxes in pre-20th centuries biographies actually useful,though they may appear to be so to readers who don't know any better. For example, how are the two infoboxes at [[Charles Borromeo]] more useful than the lead paragraph? Or try [[Wu Zetian]]. Is this an efficient presentation of information? Sure the infobox proposed here is rather benign, but I doubt it will remain that way. Keep it out. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 04:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
#:I would say that infoboxes ''complement'' prose, rather than compete with it. [[User:Edward-Woodrow|Edward-Woodrow]] :) <sub><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Edward-Woodrow|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sub> 13:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
#'''No''' - I certainly agree with Srnec the majority of !votes above are all "I like infoboxes" and as such should be ignored, Anyway I don't see what value or benefit an infobox adds here - sure it "summarises key information" but that's like me going to a library and reading the back of a book to find out what it's about ..... If readers want to know his age, birth place etc then they should read the article. Also the accessibility mantra above is rubbish - I've never used a screen reader in my life but I would imagine they're a a lot better now than say in 2005. Anyway an infobox adds nothing to the article, We have [[:Simple:Wikipedia:About|Simple English Wikipedia]] if reading isn't your thing :). –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color:blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color:orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color:navy;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 17:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
#:Accessibility is a broad domain. [[Neurodivergent]] people exists, [[visual thinking|visual thinkers]] exist, people learn and absorb information in different ways. Some people even benefit from getting the same information in multiple formats. Simple English Wikipedia is great, but we currently get quite a few readers on en, so accessibility concerns are important here as well. It's true that not everyone absorbs information best from an infobox, and your preference is good evidence for the need for strong lead sections as well. —[[User:Siroxo|siro]][[User talk:Siroxo|''χ'']][[Special:Contributions/Siroxo|o]] 20:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
#:As someone who does use a screen reader, I can assure you they don't "read" the infobox. My screen reader starts at the lead section and reads downward.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:green">''(talk)''</b>]] 07:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
# The infobox in this article seems useless to me. [[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]]<sup>[[User_talk:Ghirlandajo|-трёп-]]</sup> 19:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
===Discussion===
Line 128 ⟶ 136:
*::Then perhaps you could say something like "my professional experience suggests infoboxes are representative of best practices in web design" or something. You claimed data shows users find infoboxes valuable. If there is no such data (and honestly I'm surprised there's not survey data from Wikipedia users on something like this. Seems like something we'd love to have) perhaps you'd like to strike that claim. [[User:Ajpolino|Ajpolino]] ([[User talk:Ajpolino|talk]]) 04:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
*:::[[User:Ajpolino|@Ajpolino]] Nope, I'm comfortable with my interpretation of the data. Thanks! [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 04:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
*:I believe that the information in infoboxes is more accessible- not everybody wants to dig through the nigh-on-400-word lead just to find out he was an organist and born in Hamburg- but I doubt you'll be convinced. [[User:Edward-Woodrow|Edward-Woodrow]] :) <sub><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Edward-Woodrow|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sub> 11:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
*{{U|Elemimele}}, I agree with your assessment. I attempted to help move the community past this issue a few months ago by creating a policy proposal on [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_202#RfC_on_establishing_a_biography_infobox_guideline|infoboxes for biographies]] that simply recommended infoboxes on biographical articles. The proposal failed to gain consensus. So the status quo means more RfCs like this and [[Talk:Richard_Wagner#Wagner_infobox_rfc|Richard Wagnar]]. Most of these RfCs are ending in inclusion for the infobox, but even the ones that have failed are likely to get one eventually based on recent history. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 20:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
*:The reason that more RfC's are ending up in inclusion, is because those who oppose unnecessary infoboxes are sick and tired of arguing about it. So it's inevitable that the army of infobox advocates who frequently show up at these RfCs will eventually get their way. In my opinion, it is very telling that since the aforementioned RfC didn't result in the desired outcome, biographical articles without an infobox are now being picked off one by one, until the desired outcome of infoboxes in every bio article is achieved.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:green">''(talk)''</b>]] 03:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
*::I haven't noticed a change in the number of RfCs on this topic since the infobox proposal was closed over a month ago. It's been pretty steady the past 10 months. This RfC was created by an editor who didn't participate in that proposal and is apparently a newer editor. The idea that there's some nefarious plot to push infoboxes is a bit far fetched. I would lean more on the [[Occam's razor]] explanation... infoboxes have been for around a long time. The community has adjusted to them being a normal part of the user interface, and many users are blissfully unaware that people were fighting about them many years ago. That was me in September 2022. I'm sorry there's still bad blood about this topic for some editors, but it's natural that as time passes the number of editors perplexed that long biographies are missing infoboxes will increase. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 03:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
*:::Also, let's look at how these disputes arise: someone adds an infobox, someone else deletes it saying "it adds nothing", which is based on their subjective view and is not a valid reason to delete anything - it's perfectly valid to summarise something in table/list form for better understanding. Just let people add things to the articles - the articles are not "yours", you do not own them. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 14:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}
==Style==
{{ping|PackMecEng}} In answer to your question [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Felix_Mendelssohn&oldid=prev&diff=1169750583 here]: yes, I've read it. Have you? "For geographic places specified with the name of the larger territorial unit following a comma, generally do not link the larger unit." Between that and the CREDITS issue, please self-revert. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 01:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
:No, its helpful info to the readers and inline with MOS. Please stop going around messing with infoboxes. There is very clear consensus to have one and that was the most recent one that people were looking at when they gave their opinion in the RFC. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 02:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
::[[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]], no, it's not "inline with MOS", as already explained, and nobody above argued otherwise. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 02:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
:::The first few yes votes agreed and mentioned the purposed version. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 02:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
::::The only reference to any specific version among the yes votes appears to be your own. While I appreciate you may like that version, it still isn't MOS-compliant. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 02:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::A couple things, again it is MOS-compliant since it's in the infobox. The section you mention is about the body mostly. Second your edit did not just unlink a location that no longer exists, which we do normally link if they are no long around, it removed a bunch of other things. Next, don't just blind link things and give that as an explanation, it's unhelpful and disruptive. If you want to cite a something explain how it applies, like I have. Now given the large removals and incorrect interpretation of MOS I think we should move on. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 02:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::Unfortunately the incorrect interpretation of MOS here is yours. The section I mention includes no exemption for infobox vs body text, nor for "if they are no long around". I've also pointed out CREDITS: "image credits '''in the infobox''' image are discouraged, even if the artist is notable, since the infobox should contain only key facts of the article's subject" (emphasis added). Now, we can move on as soon as you revert yourself. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 02:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
| |||