Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Suggested infobox width

“ Standard suggested width of 300 pixels or 25 ems (300px or 25em in CSS). ”

Coming from this discussion in the {{Infobox}} talk about some changes, I realized that the metatemplate has a default width of 22em, a apreciable difference of what the MOS recommends here. I know that this was build trough community consensus but I can't find any discussions about how this was decided. And looking the code of some infoboxes here, most of them have a width size between 22em - 24em. So, the question is, should we change the recommendation here? Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 23:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I asked the same question in regards to {{Infobox animanga}} awhile back, and was told that the MOS page is out of date with current practice. It satisfied me then, but now my curiosity is once again roused. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be changed to read maximum, rather than standard. _wjemather^bigissue 23:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Then, how should it be rewritten? Most infoboxes define their width in ems and not in px. So, I think we shouldn't encourage to use widths defined in pixels. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 02:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Dispute over single articles having multiple infoboxes

This dispute has spilled over from several other pages regarding the manual of style over infoboxes.

Reddi has created and started incorporating multiple infoboxes that would replace a simple link to another articles. Reddi claims that because it is a “notable event” that there should be any number of infoboxes on individual articles pages when there is a specific event. Potentially there can be several infoboxes for a single article. Here are several examples of his work:

Alexander_the_Great#Death

Charlemagne#Imperial_diplomacy

Carthage#Fall

There are possibly 50+ additions to the infobox that he created here.

Background information: • At present here are no guidelines listed as to where an infobox should be placed (to my knowledge).

Oppose:

• Having multiple infoboxes would be a distraction from the main article.

• This is a major structural change of the format of Wikipedia articles. This action can potentially change the structure of nearly every one of the 3,000,000 articles in Wikipedia.

• It breaks with the continuity of other Wikipages, as it is a break from the established norm.

• What would be the criteria as to what would be a “notable event”

• This action adds nothing to the article(s).

Dinkytown (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment: We already have situations with multiple infoboxes which have been resolved by embedding. Example Brant Point Light, Miles Glacier Bridge. I think we can resolve this. With the Alexander the Great example, I don't understand why both his bio infobox AND his death infobox need to exist on the same page. I don't see why any one would use the "death" infobox at all, given the bio infobox. But I wouldn't declare multiple infoboxes as necessarily bad, as shown. I'd arrange a hierarchy and a way to embed them. Also, I think the point of an infobox is for quick access to information, so they should always be at the top of the page. - Denimadept (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment: There is nothing wrong with multiple infoboxes; if they are not redundant [primarily] and, especially, if they are needed/wanted. Say a biography, as cited above 'Alexander the Great'; It is an important historical ... but generally handled by biography bio infobox. His death was a turning point in history, for a variety of reason [which is not necessarily need to be listed here; someone knowledgeable in ancient history can tell you]. Now at the head the biography is needed, but at the historical event [what the box is applicable to] the box can be used there ... IF there is repetition of the historical event box and another box, then the other box can be used there [ex., many battles have boxes, and these boxes can be used (eg., contain everything of the historical event box)] ... J. D. Redding 23:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hold On: This is obliquely handled by WP:LAYOUT, with infoboxes, navboxes etc. placed in the lead or footer and not mentioned elsewhere. Before this vote proceeds, I think an actual statement of what is being voted on is needed. It may be possible no vote is necessary, as WP:LAYOUT may be the controlling document if we are talking about the styles linked above or, if we are supposed to be voting on the editing style of a particular editor, then this is not the proper venue. Sswonk (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Okay - that was probably the citation I was looking for. I was looking for some type of 'layout' description, but could not find this in the manual of style page. I will withdraw any 'vote' suggestion *if* this is solved by the WP:LAYOUT page. Can someone point this out to Reddi. I have tried to tell him that his actions are contrary to what the format is but he's been combative with me. To date, he's changed 50+ pages with his format. I welcome any other comments. Dinkytown (talk) 22:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Omission does not prevent the use and shouldn't. It's not handled directly. But common sense would dictate that use an infobox when needed; Use at lead 1st; If needed use another one; if repetitive, the use the better one; if one does not do what is needed, use the additional one .... don't use infoboxes excessively. J. D. Redding 23:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Two major points here:

1) There is no omission here, WP:LAYOUT is very specific as described here:

As explained...the lead section may contain optional elements presented in the following order: disambiguation links (dablinks), maintenance tags, infoboxes, images, navigational boxes (navigational templates), introductory text, and table of contents, moving to the heading of the first section.

Further, as described here:

"Infoboxes contain summary information or an overview relating to the subject of the article, and therefore should be put before any text..."

2) You are repeating the original infobox in the articles, case in point are examples here, here, and here. Your template additions were creative and a good attempt, but they are in conflict with the layout of Wikipedia. Lets just end this, reverse the edits, and call it a learning experience. Take care. Dinkytown (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment: These detached snippets would make sense in a timeline article (see List of timelines). The problem is that every single item from our timeline lists (including those that have yet to be written) could be a valid item for an {{Infobox Historical Event}}. Tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of "historic events" have occurred during recorded history.

I would suggestguess that what the user (or I) wants, is for wikidata to be working, and to autoextract this kind of information, in order to autogenerate timelines/infoboxes/etc. Patience is recommended. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC) and 07:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That said, we do have many instances of multiple infoboxes, probably mostly due to legitimate merges, throughout the fiction articles, sports articles, vehicle articles, military articles, taxonomy articles, etc. Jack Kemp, Mark I tank, 2 cm FlaK 30, Webley Revolver, etc. Does that need to be added to one or other of the guidelines? Is it frequently argued about anywhere? or is it generally known, and we should avoid adding it for WP:CREEP?

I think the other completely separate issue is: where exactly is {{Infobox Historical Event}} expected to be placed. Scope. That should probably be discussed at Template talk:Infobox Historical Event first. Come back here if there are any problems with that.

(on a side-note: I've removed the " - VOTE!!!" from the section/thread title (or at least I meant to. Thank you denimadept for fixing that ;), because we seem to be managing to calmly discuss things, instead. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 07:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't necessarily oppose multiple infoboxes, but they should only be used where really useful, and with caution. I think the "Historical event" one is very dubious, and certainly not a suitable basis for building up Wikidata. It has been round for a while but now seems to be causing a good deal more trouble than it is worth, and should probably be deleted. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with Dinkytown, Johnbod: My view is in agreement with Dinkytown in general. The use of the {{Infobox Historical Event}} was likely intended for article summary, as are nearly all infoboxes, not for placement next to subsections of history sections as was done by Reddi. I don't use that phrase "likely intended" in hopes of starting a debate similar to that which has evolved over the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - we can determine what was intended at the infobox talk as Quiddity suggests, unlike the constitutional debate in which the intentions of long dead authors is at question.
       I find the placement in the three articles linked in the opening of the discussion is gratuitous to the point of being silly. With the articles Quiddity has linked above, the extra infobox is used where a specific component of the subject, which might have its own article in the future, is summarized in detail - football career separated from political for Kemp, specific model of armament separated from general armament summary for the others. With the disputed articles, something which could be stated in one sentence is called out in tabular form. This occupies visual space that (weasel warning) many readers feel is better used for scholarly discussion and images. Quiddity will recall this objection being made in the past discussion of Ponte Vecchio, which resulted in the minimized infobox as it appears on that page today. I think that if a precedent for following the trend in the articles linked by Dinkytown were to be set, article quality would suffer. An infobox for each marriage and divorce of Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor? No thanks. Like these examples, landmark events that occur within the lifetime of a given subject should be handled within the text and the article should not be cluttered with boxes. Sswonk (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I find myself conflicted. I'm for infoboxes. I like 'em as a quick way to glance at an article and get the essentials. However, the arguments used here have been used against the one I use most, {{infobox bridge}}. So how we differentiate? IMO, it'd be better if this "historical event" box occurred at the top of the article, so the user doesn't have to search for it. After all, isn't that the point of an infobox? It occurs at the top to avoid having to search the article for the same data. It calls out special points, sure, but if I have to search for the infobox itself, it doesn't save me any time or frustration. If an article on someone's life calls out their personal inflection points, it should list them at the top, where they'll be immediately obvious. More, this one should allow a list, so we don't potentially have a series of them for someone's life. Granted, most people won't have more than one, but that's beside the point.

I propose a change to infoboxes in genereal: they should be appendable. If you have an infobox in an article, and another appropriate one should be added, it should appear without gap below the previous one. It should happen automatically, without special coding required for each infobox, as currently required with {{infobox nrhp}}. This would allow for lists such as I suggested above w/o an editor having to do anything special. - Denimadept (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

One more thing, they should appear at the top regardless of where someone inserts them in the text. - Denimadept (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

NO, no, no, no! I am not arguing against infoboxes at all. I am simply referring to a discussion which revealed the opinions of several regarding the clutter they felt infoboxes cause. While I disagree with the "minimized div" result at Ponte Vecchio, I think that in most cases people on the opposite side of that argument would hit the roof if they found these historical events boxes scattered throughout articles. So that is why I brought it up. For the record, I add Denimadept to the list of editors I agree with in principal. Sswonk (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was thinking of. I forgot you were there too. What gets me is that I agree with them regarding having these things scattered amid articles. They belong together, at the top, as highlights. I believe there's a rare article which shouldn't have an infobox, but the infobox should be (1) at the top for quick review, and (2) not too detailed. {{infobox bridge}} has been, IMHO, edging toward "too detailed" with some of its parameters. It's a fine line. - Denimadept (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that "they should appear at the top regardless of where someone inserts them in the text". 1) People like/dislike infoboxes for a variety of reasons. The way you or I use them shouldn't be mistaken for the only way to use them. 2) There are good contextual reasons for infoboxes to appear lower down (article#section-links, merged articles, many micro-stubs in a single article, etc). See Mini or Honda Prelude for good examples where it would be impossible to lump all the infoboxes to the top.

However, I agree with most everything else folks have said here.

And I still think the Ponte Vecchio "hidden" implementation is both practically-flawed (it mollifies the editors, but doesn't help the readers), and counter-to-policy (WP:CONEXCEPT says "Consensus decisions in specific cases do not automatically override consensus on a wider scale. ..."). But I dislike bashing my head against walls, so didn't pursue the argument... -- Quiddity (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Aside: I definitely could have used a helmet and almost took a permanent vacation over that one. I don't think we're going down that road, but my feeling is that in particular little "historical events" boxes in article subsections should be removed and discouraged in guidelines. I don't mind the way supplementary infoboxes are used in the Kemp article and the more technically oriented armament and automobile examples—history, biography, music group articles and so on are primarily narrative. Sswonk (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Another aside: And you're not the guy who inserted that infobox in the first place. Imagine how I felt. :-( "Permanent vacation" was sounding pretty good. It's probably just as well I wasn't an Admin. That's one reason I don't even look in that direction (article or Admin status). ...much. I still say it's a bridge before everything else, but ... screw it. Tempest in a very small teapot, that. - Denimadept (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to make sense of the issue. AFAICT, infoboxes historically were used to hold lots of facts in a tabular manner about a topic - thus being in some small sense a "lede" complementing the text. The case at issue, however, is the use of additional infoboxes not to function as a lede, but to furnish a pictorial table linking to some part of the article, or to a specific second article on a sub-topic? This is a substantially different use of a table from that contemplated when infoboxes started, and the issue then is "Is a substantially different use for infoboxes warranted?" I, unfortunately, can see the entire WP turning into masses of such tables with the net affect of prettifying WP at the expense of dumbing down the text aspects. WP:Layout does not seem to apply logically to this new usage, so that is not a lot of help. They do not appear to violate any policy or guideline that I found. What remains is the issue of style, ought they be encouraged or discouraged? I fear that I lean towards discouraging them, but that is mere opinion <g>. Collect (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes are used to provide comparative, at-a-glance information on a particular subject. They are not supposed to include unique content; they simply serve as a convenient way to locate comparative material. As this is most useful at the top of an article, that is where we have chosen to locate them. This does not mean that they would not be suitable in other parts of a long or detailed article, should a particular section contain its own set of data that would be usefully presented in a comparative, at-a-glance format. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Do the ones at hand meet those criteria? Collect (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say no. Were Fall of Carthage to be split to its own article at some point, it'd probably have an infobox just like the one at Carthage#Fall, for instance. While such proliferation of infoboxen probably shouldn't be encouraged (I like infobox templates in general, but even one per article seems to drive some people crazy), nor do we need to litigate against it particularly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the phrase used by Collect, "a convenient way to locate comparative material", I think this refers to tabular data about things such as dates, titles held, engine displacement, teams played for, population and area, i.e. whatever could appear in a large table comparing several different article subjects. The Carthage#Fall infobox has a nice image,(N.B. I was mistaken here, Carthage infobox does not contain an image as do the other two examples linked above, however taken generically the question that follows is still valid. – Sswonk (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)) a link akin to a section hatnote or footer like {{Main}} or {{Further}}, and a date and summary. Why is this necessary? It's all in the first sentence, the rest possibly handled with a captioned image and hatnote/footer. I just see a slippery slope here, with enthusiastic but less than discriminating editors thinking "Whoa, I like that, it's cool, let me add one to Liz Taylor for each divorce." Then you get poor text flow, edit wars over the wording of the summary, {{FixBunching}} type problems and so on. I might be inclined to retreat from asking for a guideline against these because specificity is a problem, which may be why WP:LAYOUT doesn't explicitly discourage the practice. But, I don't see much advantage at all to these examples in Carthage et al. Sswonk (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

To be accurate, the felicitous phrase was from Chris Cunningham. Collect (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I did a double-take when I attributed it to Collect, and still thought Collect was correct and saved. Happens. Sswonk (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with that premise, but as I said I don't see a specific need to rule against it in the MoS. Such issues can be managed on a case-by-case basis. An admonition against the mindset that says that all comparative information needs an infobox might be appropriate, but I'm not seeing a dire need for that at this stage. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that where the information can be simply conveyed in three or fewer sentences, that an infobox be discouraged. Thus giving a measure of certainty in this uncertain area. Sound fair enough? Collect (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it truly necessary though? We're talking about edits by one user here. I'm in the prescriptionist camp when it come to the MoS, but that doesn't mean I'm in favour of relentless instruction creep. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I am opposed to creep myself -- but a single statement does not constitute much creep at all here -- and even though only one is doing it now, isn;t it better to trust others will follow than to wait until they do? Collect (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That's basically the definition of instruction creep. One sentence may not seem like a lot, but they add up. If you want to have a go at suggested wording then go right ahead, though. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Collect's change. The point of an infobox isn't to replace text, it's to supplement data in a way that makes the data easy to find, without having to slog through a "few sentences of text" buried under 30K of what might be considered irrelevancy. - Denimadept (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Denimadept. This is unneeded instructioncreep that wikilawyers will end up abusing. Dealing with these things on a case-by-case basis should be fine, unless/until a widespread problem becomes clear.

For a specific example, see any biography-stub, where the infobox currently only addresses birth/death dates&locations and occupation. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(out) The issue is how to handle the clear problem addressed above with regard to infoboxes designed to prettify the page more than to convey additional information. How would you word it then? Collect (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Trying to be refreshingly honest, I can't. I see a death spiral along the lines of the "curly quotes" debates at MOS. I am at a loss here. Sswonk (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Depends on my goal. If I'm one of the "Infobox IS TEH EVILLLLLLL" crowd, I go one way, if I'm me, I might go either way, depending. I don't like the idea of infoboxes scattered around articles. Still, I can think of reasons to do it. For instance, {{infobox bridge}} in situations like Triborough Bridge where there are multiple actual bridges involved. Still, even there, we've managed to cram it all into one infobox. No definite answers here, sorry. - Denimadept (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Assuming by "the clear problem addressed above" you mean the issue with {{Infobox Historical Event}}, the answer is clearly to write some usage-instructions for that specific template, after discussing it at Template talk:Infobox Historical Event.

If instead, you mean the clear problem of whether to encourage or discourage multiple infoboxes, and whether or not to legislate their exact placement-location on the page, then I don't believe any explicit guidance it is needed at this time. If we did decide to, then based on the widespread and legitimate usage of multiple infoboxes in multiple locations (multiple examples given above), I'd affirm (in the hypothetical addition) that this is an acceptable practice. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly on both of those points. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Criminal

Compare the use of infoboxes of two felons: OJ Simpson and Phil Spector. Currently, the disparity comes across as double-standard bigotry. 172.165.57.157 (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

So fix it. - Denimadept (talk) 02:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No, because there are too many respectable editors either defending it or ignoring it.172.162.162.123 (talk) 04:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, edited. Now let's see how fast they revert and how poorly they argue. Thanks for the lead. - Denimadept (talk) 05:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like we have an anti-infobox person there. I'm asking him about the difference between his position and the discussion he pointed me at. - Denimadept (talk) 06:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. They're real stubborn over there. I pointed them over here. - Denimadept (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If it appears, it should be lower down, next to the relevant section of the article (at Phil Spector#Murder case, or O. J. Simpson#Las Vegas robbery).

However, I'm not sure if the 2nd infobox is required at the OJ article, given that it is detailed in full at the O. J. Simpson Las Vegas robbery case article. (?)

More importantly, this {{Infobox Criminal}} gets into potentially problematic WP:BLP issues, so I'd defer to them on all things, and would suggest making further clarifications at Template talk:Infobox Criminal before proceeding. The usage instructions at that template are a bit outofdate, with many of the examples no longer being apt. (See Garion96's suggestions at Template talk:Infobox Historical Event#Usage, for what I might tentatively suggest adding to the Criminal infobox too.) -- Quiddity (talk) 07:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I find that one of most objectionable aspects regarding the use of multiple infoboxes in an article is the visual pollution created by repeating the infobox headliners, each containing the article name, over and over again. On top of that, this repetition is loud, distracting and insulting to the intelligence of the reader. Dr.K. logos 23:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yet another reason why infoboxes such as {{Infobox Criminal}} should be merged into {{Infobox Person}}. See the (current) top item on the latter's talk page for work on this. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not convinced if that is a good idea. When parameters exist, editors will use them. Which means that for instance the parameter Conviction(s) of {{Infobox Criminal}} will be used for a person who has shoplifted in his youth. And many more possible examples. Garion96 (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Deal with it on a case-by-case basis or get used to having multiple infoboxes. - Denimadept (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Or just have the infobox the person is most famous for and read the actual article. :) Garion96 (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I find I often want to know basics: are they alive, when were they born/died, whatever, before I read the article, if I'm going to bother. But I often don't need details split out unless I'm going to read the article, in which case I want details. Now, if I'm in my area of interest, that's different. I can see multiple infoboxes in certain cases, as I've said above. - Denimadept (talk) 02:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Then just read the lead. The lead of an article should already summarize the most important points of an article. I'm not really an infobox hater (although often I just find them pointless) but some information is much better explained in prose instead of a template. Garion96 (talk) 08:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The lead rarely incorporates all the specs of an article. It's an introduction, not more than that. {{infobox bridge}}, at least, is supposed to contain a bit more than is appropriate for the intro, and in fact incorporates stuff that doesn't really work for prose. It's an example, granted. One for people may be slightly different. - Denimadept (talk) 15:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I have problems with infoboxes in that they frequently oversimplify a complex situation. I've recently dealt with an infobox that had the birth and death dates for the legendary Romulus and Remus, with infoboxes where there were edit wars over whether a battle was a victory, a defeat, a pyrhic victory, etc, with infoboxes with numbers where the numbers were contentious or the event may not even have ever occurred, etc. I also admit to having problems with Reddi, although this is not what brought me here, I found this through an earlier discussion with another editor about infoboxes. I think they should be used sparingly and certainly am dubious about any need for multiple infoboxes. I'm with Collect on this. Dougweller (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

A lead is not solely on introduction. According to WP:Lead and every good article a lead "should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article". Garion96 (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dougweller, Carion and Collect. Dr.K. logos 23:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Based on (half-heartedly) following this discussion and some on-the-fly reflection of my own, it would seem to me that the least contentious statement that might be made of infoboxes is that, for certain types of articles at least, their use is contentious. I think this probably depends on individual editors' experience with infoboxes (I personally have no problem with them, working with them regularly, but there are entire classes of articles I work on where an infobox would be wholly inappropriate), but we all seem to be in agreement that multiple infoboxes on one article should be the exception and require specific justification (and also that infoboxes are intended to summarize an article's key points, which the lead also does). Of course, like I said, I'm not really following too closely, so if I incorrectly represented an individual's opinion by making a group judgement, please don't hesitate to tell me. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 09:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

{{Infobox Korean name}}

Here's another one. I went to embed a {{location map}} to Gwangan Bridge and ran into this thing where {{infobox bridge}} should be. I tried simply placing it in the infobox bridge as the name, but that didn't work. Suggestions? - Denimadept (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)