Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:52, 26 February 2010

A new perspective

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists: Biographies Media, the arts, and architecture Misplaced Pages style and naming When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Infoboxes are a contentious issue for many WikiProjects for the articles that lie under their banner: some projects strongly reject their use while others strongly encourage their use. To what extent can WikiProjects expect non-members to follow the former's preference regarding these? Can Infoboxes be removed/added en bloc by WikiProjects from/to articles that come under their banner? The debate pertains particularly to the removal of infoboxes from articles on classical musicians but has far wider implications. Hence the need to fully resolve this issue once and for all. Thanks 20:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have thought long and hard about this now and have attempted to be as fair as possible to both sides of the debate. As requested by Happy-Melon, I will now present a case without reference to past discussion setting out the pros and cons of placing infoboxes on biographies of classical musicians.

The pros:

• Infoboxes can be useful graphics that quickly summarise the basic biographical information found in an article.
• Infoboxes can aid less literate people with their personal research.
• Infoboxes are standardised and thus can be an aid to consistency among groups of articles.

The cons:

• Infoboxes tend to state no more than the information found in a properly written lead and thus become redundant.
• Infoboxes are difficult to customise sensibly or create informatively for classical musicians.
• Infoboxes tend to be misunderstood and open to the addition of vague or misleading information; more so than the body of text itself because of the leading questions implied by the fields.
• Infoboxes can encourage the upload of images that may be neither in the public domain nor comply with fair use policy due to the “Image/Img’’ field.

Other factors to consider:

• Misplaced Pages’s articles are not owned by editors or groups of editors.
• Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project: all editing needs to be done according to consensus.
• Misplaced Pages has policies: anything that violates these policies should either be refactored or removed immediately.
• Misplaced Pages has general guidelines: editing should conform to these general principles.
• Misplaced Pages has specific advice agreed upon by consensus, most often at Wiki-Projects: editing should also normally conform to this advice. This advice often becomes implemented as a Misplaced Pages-wide guideline.
• Misplaced Pages has Wiki-Projects devoted to specific groups of articles: the editors involved in these projects often come to consensus among themselves regarding the best approach to the articles under their care; such consensus should be given due weight.
• Infoboxes are neither obligatory nor forbidden: the addition as well as the removal of such items needs consensus; often such consensus has been reached with regard to entire groups of articles to which any one particular article may belong.
• No other encyclopaedia in the world—unless designed specifically for children and the less literate—insists upon Infoboxes for each and every article; rather a small selection of articles are given Infoboxes if the addition proves to be useful.
• The entire Infobox issue has split editors into opposing camps and has even seemed to alienate well-respected editors so much that they have left the project.

I hope the above is a fair assessment of the situation that other editors can now build further arguments around. I have probably missed a few items that others can supply. Thank you --Jubilee♫clipman 12:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Preliminary discussions

The collapsed section immeadiately above was originally part of these discussions. Now that the issues therein are dealt with, it is felt that they should be collapsed to aid accessibility. Two further comments have been completely removed by their respective authors. They suggested archiving the entire discussion above (including Previous extended discussion on infoboxes, now also collapsed) and forgetting the whole thing. The second of these comments was made by me Finally, a humourous tangent has been hidden by wikimarkup after consent from all the participants in that tangent. --Jubilee♫clipman 19:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This change of heart is a great shame, because what you've written above is the clearest and most constructive summary of the position for the past two years at least. This is what you should seek comments on, not years of past discussion. I've moved the RfC tag down; I'll go update the links you posted to WT:BIOG (did you post anywhere else?). Any comments here reflect the current situation, not that of years gone by. Happy‑melon 16:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to check back but I think that only RfC (by bot obviously) WPBio and ANI were informed. The last isn't that relevent, I suspect. Plenty other people to involve though, I guess. --Jubilee♫clipman 16:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

WT:COUNCIL: I forgot about that. --Jubilee♫clipman 17:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's move on... Any fresh responses to the above? Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 16:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Naw, like you said, we should just archive it, so no one else can add their input and not even let people see this happened should they come late. Also, any mention of this again who be dealt with with a ban for daring to even think about bringing this issue up. After all, composer articles are owned by the people who contribute here and they have the only say. Anything else is a horrible crime that must be dealt with. 17:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Any more constructive comments on the above? Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 17:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, this is now in the pro-infoboxers' court. If they can come up with an acceptable, minimal, "foolproof", non-compulsory box which can be applied to (some) composer bios, all well and good. In the mean time I will continue to remove any infobox on any article which violates policy or is plain absurd. This doesn't just apply to composer bios. --Folantin (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely the correct thing to do. WP:Disinfoboxes and policy-violating boxes are to be removed post-haste, IMO. Where ever they are to be found. --Jubilee♫clipman 17:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, what's the real problem here - apart from the fact that some people seem to climb the Reichstag building dressed as Spider-Man over non-important issues all the time? Infoboxes can be useful or just clutter upp an article. It's a matter of taste. They're not mandatory. How about someone desgning a template with a button you can press to make the infobox visible if you want it? -Duribald (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

An off switch would be great actually! --Jubilee♫clipman 17:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Humourous comments hidden to help discussion flow

My suggestion was quite serious - an off/on button would be great. -Duribald (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh sorry: yes, that would be good. Basically, we get the "hide" feature implemented as standard. I like it: very practical and eminently doable. --Jubilee♫clipman 19:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"Hidden content" exasperates just as many people as infoboxes do. The main objections are on grounds of accessibility, and having another completely-subjective thing to argue about (whether the default state should be hidden or unhidden), and pagelayout (should images and such be ordered such that the page layout is optimal with the infobox hidden or unhidden). Footer navboxes are good to have hidden (when in groups of 3 or more), but sidebars should not be hidden. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hm... I see your point... --Jubilee♫clipman 20:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that it's too late to seek truce. Once upon a time a small group turned what seemed a formatting issue into a crusade against the rest of the world. Good, you can have it your way, if you prefer to be untouchables - so be it. No truce, no trust, seal the border, man your stations. Just don't step out of your closely guarded den. NVO (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Above collapsed to help editors focus on the Request for Comment itself. --Jubilee♫clipman 18:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break to help navigation

Further comments on the arguments set forth above at the head of this RfC are welcomed. Thank you --Jubilee♫clipman 04:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Having just read the closing statement from the last TfD of {{Infobox classical composer}}, I heartily agree with the recommendation therein, to re-evaluate the potential for a custom infobox, something that everyone can live with, something to contain the concise list of keywords that infoboxes represent. I think one of the best tangential efforts to this discussion, would be the creation of a modern {{Infobox classical composer/draft}}, that people could discuss the potential-specifics of. I'll participate in any efforts to do so tomorrow :)

The only alternative seems to be a future of cyclical-argument, and the use of very-imperfect infoboxes such as at Robert Nathaniel Dett and Terry Riley. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Quiddity. Are you, then, able to create boxes? I tried but got frustrated with all the weird transclutions that seem to be caused by hidden code somewhere in {{Infobox Musical artist}}. I tried modifying an older attempt but that wasn't that great, either, and very hard to get my head around. You can seen the result of that on my talk page. (The user page was speedied when I got sick of doing it!) And yes those boxes on Dett and Riley are not ideal... Nor is the one on Enrique Granados placed in 2008, removed by Kleinzach recently but later replaced by Buzz. There have actually been several edit wars recently between Kleinzach (talk · contribs) and Buzzzsherman (talk · contribs) which is how this whole thing, in fact, started. --Jubilee♫clipman 05:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to offer two thoughts about infoboxes:

• First, the question we should be considering is not whether we, the editors, like infoboxes, but whether our readers like them. If a lot of readers find them useful, we should certainly include them; on the other hand, if readers simply skip over them, the arguments for them are much less compelling.

I searched the web for survey information on infoboxes and found nothing. There is a lot of research about the presentation of structured information and learning, but I don't think it's terribly germaine to the question at hand.

We editors tend to be very editor-centric about the Misplaced Pages, and not nearly enough reader-centric.

• Second, there is a lot of research being done to develop query engines to extract structured information from infoboxes, and, in parallel, to create natural language queries that automatically populate infoboxes. I know there is a lot of effort to include metatags in articles, but there are lots and lots of articles with infoboxes already, and very few with metatags. Here are some sites that are doing research on automatic extraction of information for or from infoboxes:
  • http://drupal.org/project/createfromweb
  • http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/blogger/2009/01/27/extracting-wikipedia-infoboxes-values-from-text/ (create infoboxes through text analysis)
  • http://blog.werdn.us/2009/06/semantic-data-in-wikipedia/
  • http://semantic-mediawiki.org/Semantic_MediaWiki

The inclusion of infoboxes would make it possible to ask queries like: show me all the articles on artists (composers, poets, painters) who lived in Leipzig between the years 1820 and 1840.

--Ravpapa (talk) 06:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that is the best point yet: we need to think of the readers not the editors! --Jubilee♫clipman 06:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, the hypothetical "general reader" is always of the same opinion as the commenter. He's no more than a "Maxi-me", good for a bit of rhetorical boosting. Getting back to the RfC, it's been quite obvious for days that the only way this debate is likely to progress is if someone comes up with an experimental, "compromise" infobox. Those vociferously in favour of a box have been strangely reluctant to create one. This may be because it's technically impossible for the average mortal. "Misplaced Pages: the encyclopaedia anyone can edit...if they have a degree in Computer Science". --Folantin (talk) 09:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Suppose we did have an infobox. What would be put in it? --Ravpapa (talk) 11:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, 'As I've said above, a minimal, reasonably "foolproof" infobox would contain the following parameters: "Famous as" rather than "Occupation"; "Born", with an alternative (and I mean alternative) for "Baptised"; "Died"; and "Floruit" as an alternative (and I mean alternative) for "Born/Died". Everything else is likely to be problematic'.--Folantin (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

My talk page contains an attempt worked on by me and Buzzzsherman. It is a little (!) over the top and needs serious pruning back. However the essential idea is there: It is specifically for classical musicians ("composer" can be replaced by "instrumentalist", "conductor", "singer" etc. The design hails from 2007 and the original attempt can be found at User:Turangalila/sandbox/Infobox composer.) We now have two editors willing to help out design a sensible Infobox we can all live with. BTW, I just don't care any more: if there is a box on an article, there is a box on the article; if there is no box on an article, there is no box on the article. I will neither add nor remove (unless the box is blatantly ridiculous or violates policy) from now on: each time I remove any box, I will make my reasons clear on the article's talk page as per normal practice all over en:WP. Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 19:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think having two editors in three years interested in customizing an infobox. As you've seen this topic comes up with some regularity. I guess people come to expect a box around the photo in the upper left of an article and want to do something about it. I've gone on formatting/style kicks myself with regards to categories and navigation templates. But, as you've seen, by the time a "sensible infobox we can all live with" is created there isn't much left other than birth/baptism-date and deathdate. Most of the rest of the information does not warrant itself to bulletization. That means the box doesn't add much except for the actual border-box itself. Then, the project loses steam until the discussions are archived and it comes up again.DavidRF (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If all it does is sit there doing very little at all, then by definition it is entirely harmless and ignorable. I don't see a problem with that. The discussion will never, ever come up again if this RfC is conducted in a seemly manner and the conclusions drawn up at the end are per the consensus from the whole of Misplaced Pages (as they are very much beginning to be, now). That's the whole point: that is precisely why this is happening. --Jubilee♫clipman 20:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

So, create an Infobox Composer template, put *nothing* in it except the box and the name-header and then add it to hundreds of articles? That's a bit on the absurd side. What's your motivation for continuing this discussion? I'm worried most of the regulars have tuned this discussion out already. I understand you are looking to compromise, but its hard to compromise a yes/no question.DavidRF (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

No: create a sensible template, put whatever is needed into it, and place it where ever it seems to fit (which actually might be nowhere at all, note). The present {{Infobox Musical artist}} is clearly of no use at all to us—indeed the lead now precludes its usage on classical musician articles. In fact, it appears that two editors are actually looking into the possibilities as we speak: see above and User talk:Happy-melon#infobox usercopy. My motivations for continuing this are to conclude it once and for all so it doesn't come back over and over and over and over and over and over again (as the title of this whole sorry affair obviously declares, to the whole of Misplaced Pages (if they care to look), has indeed happened). If the others have turned their backs on this, they will lose. Full stop. They need to get involved now and voice their opinions once and for all and nevermore again. Note that practically all the editors that have actually commented above on the RfC (rather than on side issues) are in favour of some compromise involving a bespoke infobox. We don't have to use it but these things are optional anyway. I think that point needs to be voiced rather more loudly, actually. Some people seem to be forcing the things down our throats: that, too, should be investigated. What right have they to do that. (Unless, of course, they have clear guidelines published on their project pages that were drawn up following consensus among their group of editors, perhaps... but no that would be absurd wouldn't it?) --Jubilee♫clipman 23:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I dislike "boxing" of creative art in general (s. Toshio Hosokawa boxed "Neo-Impressionism") and dislike redundancy as a cause of likely mistakes, so would vote on both reasons against required info-boxes - but don't oppose voluntary ones. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes are actually neither obligatory nor forbidden by WP guidelines and policies (those that have actually been taken up by the whole community, that is). I think that should be made far clearer. I might suggest that the guidelines are clarified on this point over at the relevent talkpages etc later in the week. --Jubilee♫clipman 23:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

A /person/ is not 'creative art'. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That is also true: we need to encourage the use of an appropriate box if people insist on using them. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I need to take a short wikibreak: I have some real life stuff to attend to and this RfC has started to take its toll... I'll be back in a few days but will still watch this "from afar". --Jubilee♫clipman 02:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty fatigued with infobox discussions and indeed I wish that infoboxes had never been invented. To review, the two big problems are: (a) they induce poor article organization, since they result in trivia being placed in a visually very prominent location. By the same token, they divert attention from the lead paragraph, which ideally has been carefully written to tell the reader exactly what is important about the topic. (b) Infoboxes attract drive-by edits from editors who don't know the field (haven't read any reference sources), and thus greatly increase the probability that the encyclopedia will include inaccurate or misleading statements. I wish infoboxes could be removed wholesale from WP and regret that this is only done in areas (science, classical music) where the editors are unusually well-informed about their topic. Yours truly, Opus33 (talk) 02:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"I wish that infoboxes had never been invented". I agree wholeheartedly. They also create never-ending disputes on talk pages for articles on anything remotely controversial because people keep trying to drive round pegs into square holes (see Talk:World War II archives for pages and pages of this nonsense: "Canada should be in there", "But Canada sucks!", "No, the USA sucks!", "France sucks!", "China sucks!" - and the arguments are still continuing right now : "this has been a continuous matter of quarrel between users for many months"). I've got over a thousand pages on my watchlist and the articles that take the most maintenance are the ones with infoboxes because drive-by editors keep adding the same rubbish to them (naturally, anything involving nationality or ethnic origin is a nightmare). --Folantin (talk) 08:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this insight, Folantin. I would add that to the extent that infoboxes force knowledgeable editors to spend their WP time dealing with drive-by edits and talk page controversies, they are taking away time that could be spent on improving article quality. Cheers, Opus33 (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes are not mandatory, nor should they be deleted without good cause. In my opinion a concise lead covering all of the noteworthy infobox parameters probably constitutes good cause. A stub with no information other than what would be in the infobox probably constitutes good cause. Where in doubt, the first significant contributor should generally get their way. Regardless, edit warring over them should lead to a block. WFCforLife (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Here are my answers to the two questions that were asked:

1. WikiProjects cannot require non-members to follow their preferences regarding infoboxes, or anything else, especially when that preference is markedly different from the general community consensus. WikiProjects (groups of editors) have exactly the same authority as non-members (co-equal editors).
2. Mindlessness is evil: Infoboxes should not be removed -- or spammed -- automatically or en masse by anyone. Decisions should be made individually, based on the needs and benefits of the specific template at the specific article.

Additionally, here's my answer to the question that wasn't asked:

The anti-infobox editors need to revise their published advice and their uncollegial behavioral practices to present a non-authoritarian (but still strong) argument for their general advice against (dis)infoboxes and to show respect for the non-members' and member-dissenters' views. I suggest, as one step in the right direction, changing their advice page from what some members seem to interpret as "We hereby forbid infoboxes" to a logical explanation, perhaps with a suitably revised version of the pros and cons as listed above by Jubilee. Additionally, whenever a (dis)infobox is added to an article, we are ultimately all best served by using the talk page rather than the undo button: in addition to being a less WP:OWNer-y, less WP:BITEy, more cooperative behavior, an educational conversation with an 'infobox spammer' could ultimately benefit the entire encyclopedia by helping more editors learn about the advantages and disadvantages of these templates. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Since, effectively, I am only taking a "semi-wikibreak" (as it were), I feel I ought to respond that.

1. I can revise the published advice myself, since I am a member of this WikiProject. It does actually need to be done post haste, given that, at present, it clearly contravenes the overarching policies and guidelines accepted by Misplaced Pages and implemented by consent, through the proper channels, as general WP policies and guidelines.
2. Talking rather than deleting/reverting/deleting/adding/reverting/adding/reverting/adding/etc (3RR?) is obviously the correct proceedure.

I will take a hard look at all the evidence presented above and consider how best to rewrite the guidelines. I will then propose the rewrite to the WikiProject and, with their consent, implement the changes. The RfC should perhaps run for a while longer, though, to allow a few other editors to comment (both CM-related-project members and non-members). I might note that, now that Kleinzach has left, the major editors at WP:CTM take an open-minded view on infoboxes. I can write CTM's guidelines any time: "CTM takes no stand on whether an infobox is included in or excluded from any biographical article. All we ask is that an appropriate box is chosen and that no Misplaced Pages Policies are violated. On rare occasions it my be necessary to remove a biographical infobox: if our members do this they will explain why on the article's talk page, full discussion on individual articles being key."

--Jubilee♫clipman 00:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

See my replies to WFCforLife, above below, for a suggested way out of this man-trap. I could actually add a proposal to rewrite the published advice, now. Thoughts? --Jubilee♫clipman 01:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Note - The following comments were originally made in response to WFCforLife. I moved them here because they effectively state the precise objections of this WikiProject to infoboxes when taken together. The comments highlighted here could easily serve as a starting point for redrafting the project's published advice.

Comment - ...a concise lead covering all of the noteworthy infobox parameters probably constitutes good cause. A stub with no information other than what would be in the infobox probably constitutes good cause. Where in doubt, the first significant contributor should generally get their way. Regardless, edit warring over them should lead to a block.

A paraphrase of those words should be in the new advice published by this and similar WikiProjects. They explain concisely and effectively—and quite magnificently—the precise position of these projects, as far as I can tell from the comments posted above. Thank you WFCforLife

Addendum - Add to that Opus33's comment, (a) they induce poor article organization, since they result in trivia being placed in a visually very prominent location. By the same token, they divert attention from the lead paragraph, which ideally has been carefully written to tell the reader exactly what is important about the topic. (b) Infoboxes attract drive-by edits from editors who don't know the field (haven't read any reference sources), and thus greatly increase the probability that the encyclopedia will include inaccurate or misleading statements, and we are practically there. Why, oh, why didn't the projects simply explain it all clearly in the first place? (Instead of saying "look at these hundreds of Terabytes of discussion", I mean.)

Further to that - They also create never-ending disputes on talk pages for articles on anything remotely controversial because people keep trying to drive round pegs into square holes - Folantin's insightful comment should be added to the list also.

--Jubilee♫clipman 01:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

We're still arguing about something which doesn't exist. There is no Composer Infobox. As for projects laying down the law about infoboxes, these rules look pretty extensive to me. Is that allowable? (Although they don't seem to stop continuing problems . But, hey, that's infoboxes for you). --Folantin (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm a member of WikiProject Opera (but not this one or the Classical Music project, although the subject areas overlap) and have been watching this discussion for quite a while {{{{SIGH}}}}.

I'm inclined to agree with WhatamIdoing's comment that much of the problem stems from the way the guidance about infoboxes is worded on projects like this one where the majority of members find them counterproductive. This leads to cyclic disputes (usually arising from edit-warring on a particular article) which eventually descend into generalized name-calling and accusations of "ownership". This ultimately obscures the fact that many editors with expertise in the field and extensive experience in actually creating the content of these articles have good reasons for their views which may not be obvious to someone from outside the field.

This has nothing to do with "elitism" or "snobbery", although these terms often get thrown around when things get heated. It has to do with familiarity with the literature on the subject, its specialised vocabulary, and the general style used by key reference works. I have no idea what is appropriate or problematic for infoboxes on military commanders, baseball players, or philosophers and would trust the judgement of the editors working in those areas.

I would suggest rewriting the guidelines to briefly but clearly spell out the reasons why this project discourages the use of infoboxes and to offer a suggested version if there is a consenus (or strong feeling) for the addition of one to a particular article. Having said that, I feel rather strongly that:

1. The various permutations of {{Infobox musical artist}} are completely inappropriate for use with classical singers, composers, and instrumentalists, particularly historical ones. They were designed for pop genres and in my opinion not very well for those either. I won't belabour my reasons but have outlined them in this discussion about the template's documentation
2. If infoboxes are used in some classical music articles, they should be simplified versions of the plain person infoboxes with no possibility for fields which are anachronistic, unsuitable for the genre, subjective, or foster misleading over-simplifcation. Incidentally, you'll find similar views expressed by editors from the Children's Literature Project (the comments from User:Awadewit, an active Featured article contributor and reviewer, are particularly cogent) and the Visual Arts Project. See also the Visual Arts project guidelines.

OK, so a non-problematic infobox may seem like a glorified image caption, but at least it presents basic facts and won't mislead the reader or detract from the article. And if it can forestall these recurring, time-wasting and often ill-tempered debates, so be it. You can see some possibilities here. Voceditenore (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• I completely see the pros for an infobox for 'classical' composers, and also many of the cons. User:Deskford says it very well here. Speaking as a reader and not as an editor, I find infoboxes extremely helpful since I am a chronic "skimmer" - and many times I go to an article just to get pertinent facts and getting this information from the infobox helps greatly. I like the idea of coming up with at least a simplified version such as what Voceditenore has created. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Frankly, in none of the cases shown in User:Voceditenore/Sandbox#Monkeying around... am I convinced I could take in the relevant information better by looking at the infobox than by simply reading a well-written lead sentence. The whole idea that infoboxes are "useful" seems quite dubious to me, and without objective proof I'm simply not going to believe it. When I want to tell somebody that I'd like them to pass me the salt, I say "could you pass me the salt please". I don't say: "request type: passing. requested object: salt. subject: you. target: me". We humans are genetically programmed to communicate with language. Syntactically coherent sentences. Not tabulated fragments of language. In the same way, if I want to communicate that "Marcello Guagliardo was born on 25 January 1963 and has been active as an opera tenor since 1986", then I won't say: "name: Marcello Guagliardo. born: 25 January 1963. Years active: 1986 – present. Occupation: Opera singer (tenor)". If our Lord had wanted us to communicate in tabulated data sheets, he wouldn't have given us an inborn capability of communicating through syntax. We humans speak in proper sentences because they are actually easier and faster to understand than anything else. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I couldn't agree with you more! :-) But it could be useful to have something that's does "least harm" as a back-up if persuasion fails. I did the Giordani box to show an editor whose box I had removed. I explained why and pointed him/her a more suitable alternative, although in the end they decided not to add it. The others I had done during a discussion of this issue at the Classical Music project, but in the end nothing came of it. Another point I'd like to make is about the much vaunted "consistency" and "professional finish" these boxes are supposed to bring to Misplaced Pages. Infoboxes give only the illusion of consistency and "a professional finish" to what is more often than not a quite amateurish article. Real consistency and professionalism on Misplaced Pages is ensuring that every biographical article has a well-written lead paragraph which gives all the main information required, clearly and concisely. But frankly, a lot of editors find that too much work, especially if they don't know much about the subject, hence the lure of the bullet point. Voceditenore (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I also completely agree with Future perfect. Eusebeus (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

First, if we had a bespoke infobox for classical musicians and opera personnel, would it resolve the immediate issue of the misuse of certain other boxes such as Infobox Musical artist? Several editors are looking into that custom box as we speak, I understand.

Second, can we now move to a proposal for redrafting this project's guidelines? Several editors have made suggestions above, which I have listed, and other editors have added further insights recently.

Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 19:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I get confused reading this thread. Most people appear to be against infoboxes yet there is this persistent push for redrafting guidelines. How many people here are actually pro-InfoBox? (as opposed to simply being open to creating a dummy info-box in hopes of making the issue go away). My feeling from reading this thread is that there is just a couple of strong-willed pro-Infobox editors trying to impose their will against a consensus by outlasting everyone else. If that's what is happening, then can we at least be honest about it?DavidRF (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

To clarify my position: I have no preference at all. They are either there or they aren't there, but they should be relevent and add to the quality of an article if they are included.

The percieved problem is the apparant dogmaticism in the composers project's guidelines: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Composers#Guidelines. The link leads to a huge list of previous debates that people appear to be expected to wade through. A clear, concise, and frank explanation in the guidelines themselves would help curious/angry/bemused/etc editors to understand the project's position quickly and effectively. BTW, this might be the time to remind editors of the actual wording of the Policy on Consensus: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy does not apply to articles within its scope, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right. Thus, just because a WikiProject says "no" or "yes" to something, it doesn't mean that everyone else should follow suit: all other editors are free to do as they will until wider consensus is reached that that WikiProject's advice is to accepted as a WP:Guideline. --Jubilee♫clipman 20:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. Just clarifying things. I guess all the wiki-politics-ese is making me paranoid. I've disagreed with consensus before and lived with it and find its not a big deal. I just find it odd that that we seem to be caving to something that no one actually wants. The rules appear dogmatic in part because its a yes/no question, but also because there's been a give-an-inch-take-a-yard mentality with regards to some of the superficial stuff over the years. Maybe this is just a case of spelling out in more detail why so many people here don't want infoboxes in the project guidelines? Otherwise, it just feels like a smooth debater is twisting peoples arms into agreeing to things that he claims he has no preference about. That's the source of my paranoia. Now that I've voiced it, I'm fine.  :-)DavidRF (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I joined the discussion because of a request for input, somewhere or other. I generally favour the use of appropriate infoboxes, though fully recognise that the available fields aren't always perfect, and that some people dislike infoboxes' over-simplicity of information and strong visual presence; and that conversely, some people (or people in certain circumstances) appreciate the simplicity. (For example, I may want to know what pieces Vivaldi is famous for, and how they would be grouped/described. Having to read/skim through the entire article looking for that information would be inefficient for my purposes. But if there were a link to his in an infobox, and a keyword-reminder for his style/school (baroque), that would be the most helpful for me, in that circumstance.)

At User:Quiddity/composers, I've put together a sample infobox, and all the related links I could find. Feel free to edit/move/discuss that however might be useful. As people have said above, there needs to be some kind of infobox that is suitable for articles where there is agreement or precedent to use one (e.g. Robert Nathaniel Dett and Terry Riley).

I strongly agree with Jubileeclipman's (et al) proposed revisions of the project guidelines. I don't desire to force infoboxes to be used anywhere inappropriate, nor to irritate any editors needlessly. (Happy and productive editors are one of our most valuable, and fragile, resources...)

HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing wrote: "WikiProjects cannot require non-members to follow their preferences regarding infoboxes, or anything else ". I don't think that's correct. All projects have guidelines for the structure of their articles, e.g. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Composers#Article structure or Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Opera/Article styles and formats, and these are consulted and followed. As to violating Misplaced Pages-wide policies: there is no policy demanding or forbidding infoboxes. As to deleting other editors' contributions: this is a normal part of editing and improving articles, e.g. in the case of trivia, notice board-like entries, and other tangential text.

Regarding the matter under discussion: Folantin, Opus33, DavidRF, Voceditenore, Fut.Perf. and Eusebus explain why infoboxes don't work for the articles of this project. I have nothing to add, but as it has been mentioned that numbers may play a part in resolving this discussion, I'm registering my point of view. Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

About "consensus"

(I'm starting a new sub-section here as the above has become very long. Feel free to re-structure if inappropriate. Voceditenore (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC))

Jubileeclipman has twice quoted Misplaced Pages:Consensus:

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy does not apply to articles within its scope, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right.

In my view this is very misleading and not relevant here. Although the contents of infoboxes are subject to policy, e.g. verifiability, neutrality, respect for copyright laws, etc. there is no policy stating that infoboxes are required or forbidden or even desirable. Take a look at: Misplaced Pages:Featured article criteria, Misplaced Pages:List of policies (content), Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (infoboxes), and even Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Infoboxes. Also, the notion of a project "requiring" either its members or non-members to adhere to a guideline is a straw man. Even in the current wording, there is only a strong recommendation and no violation of any existing Misplaced Pages policy:

Current consensus among project participants holds that the use of currently-available biographical infoboxes is often counterproductive on composer biographies. They should not be used without first obtaining consensus on the article's talk page.

There is no need for the entire "community" to approve that guideline, any more than there is for the guidelines and style recommendations of other projects, many of which are far more detailed and stringent than the ones here.

Take a look at the 9 Featured Articles under the scope of this project: Bradley Joseph, Joseph Szigeti, Josquin des Prez, Witold Lutosławski, Olivier Messiaen, Dmitri Shostakovich, Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, and Bedřich Smetana. Of these only the first 2 have an infobox, and Bradley Joseph is an anomaly in that his work is only partially classical, most of it is in the jazz, adult contemporary and New Age genres. One could almost say that amongst the Featured Article editors and reviewers for classical music biographies there is a consensus not to use infoboxes.

I'm all in favour of re-phrasing the guidelines to make them more friendly and understandable to editors from outside the subject area. I'd also suggest that when members discuss the removal of an infobox on a talk page (or in an edit summary), care should be taken to word it diplomatically and to avoid phrasing which could be interpreted as aggressive or dismissive of the editor who added the infobox. Most editors are amenable to well-reasoned arguments and appreciate a patient and civil approach.

However, this also applies to editors who object when an infobox is removed. I deplore the "Who are you to tell me what do!" approach and the name-calling which often characterises their responses. It is not only profoundly unhelpful but rudely dismissive of the editors who actually create and maintain the content of these articles. Voceditenore (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Perhaps a straw poll would be useful at this point to get a clearer view of where we stand, free of all the extensive discussion. I'll suggest headings here, and since I've been silent so far I'll add my name in the appropriate spot to get things started. A couple of notes. First, to compare views of those most closely involved in the subject matter at hand and those in the wider community at large, I think it is useful to break down results by who does and does not edit classical music articles. Second, noting that a dedicated "classical" box template neither exists nor seems likely to come into being (all efforts to create one to date seemingly having foundered), I'm focusing on inclusion of the currently available box form(s) in articles about classical musicians. That also seems fair, given that inclusion of the present boxes gave rise to this perpetual debate in the first place. Drhoehl (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

RELATIVE TO ARTICLES ABOUT CLASSICAL COMPOSERS AND PERFORMERS:

1. Editors who regularly contribute to classical music articles and support inclusion of current infoboxes as the rule, omission as the exception

2. Editors who do not regularly contribute to classical music articles and support inclusion of current infoboxes as the rule, omission as the exception

• Cricket02 (as an editor who contributes to composer articles, not always classical)
• -- Quiddity (talk) (but leaning towards "no strong preference")
• Jezhotwells, occasionally contribute to classical and non classical music articles (and if you can tell me where the boundary is, then you're a better man than me.)
• Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC) - First thing I'd read.
• I would edit classical music articles more often if this project wasn't as overbearing. ThemFromSpace 21:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

3. Editors who regularly contribute to classical music articles and support omission of current infoboxes as the rule, inclusion as the exception

• --Peter cohen (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC) (my main issue is with how the infoboxes and contents of the rest of the article can drift apart. If the people who argue in their favour are prepared to do the work to keep them synchronised, then I would be agnostic on this issue.)
• Voceditenore (talk) 10:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC) with the caveats that all exceptions be discussed on the talk page of the article in question and that {{Infobox musical artist}} is completely unsuitable for the purpose

4. Editors who do not regularly contribute to classical music articles and support omission of current infoboxes as the rule, inclusion as the exception

• Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

5. Editors who regularly contribute to classical music articles and oppose inclusion of current infoboxes under all circumstances

• Drhoehl (talk)
• Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Opus33 (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

6. Editors who do not regularly contribute to classical music articles and oppose inclusion of current infoboxes under all circumstances

7. Editors who regularly contribute to classical music articles and would require inclusion of current infoboxes under all circumstances

8. Editors who do not regularly contribute to classical music articles and would require inclusion of current infoboxes under all circumstances

9. Editors who regularly contribute to classical music articles and have no strong preference either way

• Jubilee♫clipman (but they should be chosen appropriately ({{Infobox musical artist}} clearly being unsuitable, for example), be relevant (with respect to the information contained therein) and add to the quality of an article, and they should not violate any policies, if they are included; merits/demerits should be discussed on a case-by-case basis on article talk pages and edit wars should be avoided)
• Deskford (talk)
• Jashiin (talk) (but if infoboxes are included, let them be of a type suitable for classical music, not Infobox:Musical artist)
• Magic♪piano assuming a reasonable box exists. Existing infoboxes aren't useful.

10. Editors who do not regularly contribute to classical music articles and have no strong preference either way

Comment on poll

I'm not sure any of the above choices adequately summarise my view, which is: (a) I oppose infoboxes as a rule; (b) there is no currently existing "Infobox:Composer" and I strongly object to the use of unsuitable boxes such as Infobox:Musical Artist on composer articles; (c) I would be prepared to tolerate a minimal, "foolproof" custom infobox but (d) there should be no rule imposing such a box on all articles and it should only be added on a page-by-page basis with consensus from editors who have worked on each particular article. --Folantin (talk) 09:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• This pretty much summarizes my view too, although at the moment I've added my name under 3. Voceditenore (talk) 10:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Include me as agreeing this comment as well. BTW I believe that all three of us subscribing here (so far) qualify as Editors who regularly contribute to classical music articles, for what that is worth.--Smerus (talk) 10:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Yup, same here. Let me add, per Future Perfect above, that, as this would be nothing more than adding a frame to a picture to include exactly the same information contained in the lede (the composer's dates), I really don't see the point; but I don't object if this is actually deemed useful somehow. Eusebeus (talk) 11:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with all of the above. I'm an Occasional Participant here and am actually working on a new (opera) composer at the moment. --GuillaumeTell 12:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• sounds good to me, too. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• This also rather neatly summarizes my view. I won't fight over a simple, foolproof box, used by local (article-by-article) consensus, and indeed it may be necessary to develop such a box just to keep this heartburn-inducing discussion from happening again and again and again. Antandrus (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with above comments that some kind of box would be acceptable.Viva-Verdi (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• I tried implementing such a box about a year ago, and it was a big mistake. Other editors instantly leapt in and added multiple trivia fields, producing exactly the kind of box that serves the WP so badly. And the ensuing discussion was acrimonious. Let's not go there again, ok? Regards, Opus33 (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere in the discussion, but then I don't have the time to read all of it. I've found two useful things about infoboxes in general:

1. A person's date of death is accompanied by the age of death, which is rarely specified in the lead, and frequently not specified in the article. Sure, it's easy to subtract one date from the other, keeping in mind the person's birth and death days, but still.
2. For some reason, most Misplaced Pages composer articles I've seen (as a matter of fact, most biographies too...) only specify the dates in the lead, not places of birth and death. In many cases, the places are indicated later on in the article, sometimes towards the end of the lead, but still, an infobox helps.

That said, my vote still stands, I have no preference whatsoever. Just make sure inappropriate infoboxes (e.g. Infobox:Musical artist) don't make their way to classical composer articles. --Jashiin (talk) 11:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That's why my vote is "no, no, a thousand times no!" To wax Stevensonian for a moment, if boxes are a possibility, no matter which ones are out there, I expect that editors who think everything from plainchant to Mahler's "Resurrection" Sym. is a "song" will persist in afflicting us with The Wrong Box, and, if history is any guide, will then get upset and combattively launch new discussions like this one when others remove them. I find maddening how much unproductive time some our most capable and knowledgeable editors have sunk into arguing over whether Beethoven should have a listing of "associated acts." Drhoehl (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages requests for comment