Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:18, 29 August 2016

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a problematic page in that it essentially victimises a small group of editors who are known to not approve of infoboxes in arts and biographies. Though other articles are included in an attempt to make the list more discreet, articles by Tim Riley, Brianboulton, Cassianto, SchroCat and Dr. Blofeld feature strongly in the list, who have all been at the centre of long and discriminatory discussions on infoboxes. This page can be considered a breeding ground for infobox warring, serving as a sort of "launch pad" for infobox enforcement, enabling pro-infobox supporters to pick on articles and causing trouble, which is counterproductive.

During the past two months, there have been four large scale discussions on infoboxes, all of which have been disruptive. They are Gustav Holst, Noel Coward, Thorpe Affair, and Josephine Butler. With the exception of Butler, all are FAs and have featured no infoboxes. Sagaciousphil recently removed several articles from this list, believing that this list is unfair for targeting articles. I think this list has outstayed its welcome. I believe that Gerda stated that it was only constructed anyway for the purposes of an arb discussion. JAGUAR  18:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Sorry Gerda but there's been at least four articles targetted on this list in the last week or two. In the last two months there's actually been at least twice as many disputes. Tim and Brian are being bullied away from the project, and this list is one of the tools for doing that. Generally I support the idea of anybody doing what they want on here in the project space, but I have become increasingly concerned that Tim and Brian are being targetted, and they're two of our very best editors who we can't afford to lose. Anything which contributes towards forcing them out of this encyclopedia should be obliterated, and that includes editors who repeatedly cause a nuisance with infobox enforcement. They should be shown the door.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Concur with Dr. B. It's not happenstance that articles-particularly FAs, are hit with this conflict and many times over and over again. Boxes aren't mandatory and as seen time and again, everyone does not view them as an improvement. The rhetoric re: IBs has increased markedly since lifting of bans and restrictions in 2015 on those who were ARB sanctioned. Check the user pages of anyone who is either against infoboxes or believes they're voluntary--no one has an "anti-IB" list. We hope (talk) 18:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment An avid score is being kept as seen by the latest entry re: the Noël Coward infobox RFC. The edit summary says "‎let's see how many times back and forth, actually quite amusing". The people who put considerable time and effort into these articles certainly are not amused. We hope (talk) 19:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Show this page to Arbcom, then delete. It seems obvious that the only purpose of this "WikiProject" is to attract editors whose purpose is to force infoboxes into articles over the objections of the principal content contributors. It seems to me clearly a violation of the spirit of the Arbcom infobox case. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - the page seems indeed to be in effect an incitement to attack.--Smerus (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)