| Revision as of 10:53, 12 July 2013 editPigsonthewing (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors266,349 edits cc← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:44, 12 July 2013 edit undoLankiveil (talk | contribs)27,123 edits reNext edit → | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| **Editors are free to choose the aspects of Misplaced Pages to which they devote their efforts. Why should they not? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 10:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC) | **Editors are free to choose the aspects of Misplaced Pages to which they devote their efforts. Why should they not? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 10:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
| *Great article Brian. I agree wholeheartedly. Also agree with Nick's comment above. <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">—] ]</b> 10:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC) | *Great article Brian. I agree wholeheartedly. Also agree with Nick's comment above. <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">—] ]</b> 10:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
| *Ack, that Winston Churchill one is horrible. That said, as we can see from the discussion above, any attempt to chop them back down to the basics will be difficult because everyone will have two cents to contribute on their own favourite bits of information. ] <sup>(])</sup> 11:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC). | |||
Revision as of 11:44, 12 July 2013
← Back to Dispatches
Discuss this story
- Congrats on bringing the Dispatches back, and a very good job indeed Brian. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Don't you mean prolific reviewing rather than "profligate" reviewing? Voceditenore (talk) 07:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Uh, yes—my fault. Thanks! Ed 07:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Apart from that minor point, a very thought-provoking piece. Thanks to both Brian and you. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think people just need to start using collapsible infoboxes where only the most important information is shown uncollapsed. e.g. Reelin. --Tobias1984 (talk) 07:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I like collapsible infoboxes as well. Using one on Template:Sclass- allowed me to include an extra image and hide statistical information that many readers won't care about. Ed 08:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I prefer collapsed parameters to collapsed boxes that don't reveal the parameters to the reader. Incidentally, I just collected my thoughts on the topic, see if you think it's funny. This is ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Collapsing infoboxes, or parts therein, is a bad idea. It defeats the purpose of providing our readers with a quick and convenient overview; and it makes it likely that editors who are updating facts in the body will see that they also need to to so in the infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I like collapsible infoboxes as well. Using one on Template:Sclass- allowed me to include an extra image and hide statistical information that many readers won't care about. Ed 08:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Funny stuff! I didn't twig to the satire until the bit about geographic coordinates being out of place in an infobox for a geographic location. And the Empire State Building "example" which is simply the result of {{infobox NRHP}} being nested inside {{infobox building}}, not actually a clever scheme to randomly duplicate listed data? Brilliant. I look forward to more comedy at this level in the future. - Dravecky (talk) 09:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well, it's not as clever as it might be: the co-ordinates really don't need to be listed twice in what is already a massive infobox. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed the duplicate data from Empire State Building. It took seconds to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Let me add my voice in agreement with Brian here. Although I am inclined to agree with Dravecky's point as well: co-ordinates seem like a sensible thing to be in an infobox, especially since the link allows a map of the location to be viewed. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I find coordinates useful in infoboxes. It's a pity that Brian seems only to have considered his own personal preferences, and not the circumstances of others. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for this article Brian - I've been feeling the same thing. A problem with large/complex infoboxes is that they also can turn into resource-sinks, with editors (and especially newish editors) tending to focus on the infobox rather than the body of the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Editors are free to choose the aspects of Misplaced Pages to which they devote their efforts. Why should they not? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Great article Brian. I agree wholeheartedly. Also agree with Nick's comment above. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ack, that Winston Churchill one is horrible. That said, as we can see from the discussion above, any attempt to chop them back down to the basics will be difficult because everyone will have two cents to contribute on their own favourite bits of information. Lankiveil 11:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC).