Talk:Felix Mendelssohn: Difference between revisions

|action1=GAN

|action1date=10:29, 24 December 2010

|action3oldid=820432477

 

|currentstatus=FA

|maindate=3 February 2019

|otd2date=2020-11-04|otd2oldid=987084313

|otd3date=2022-11-04|otd3oldid=1119935935

}}

}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

| algo = old(90d)

}}

__TOC__

 

== Infobox ==

 

== Rfc for infobox ==

 

*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)

#'''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)

 

===No===

#'''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]] :) _{<nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Edward-Woodrow|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki>} 13:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

 

===Discussion===

*: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)