| Revision as of 21:54, 5 April 2013 editNikkimaria (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users232,539 edits →Con-infobox: +← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:02, 5 April 2013 edit undoNikkimaria (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users232,539 edits →Viewpoints Discussion: +Next edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| === Pro-infobox === | === Pro-infobox === | ||
| * (placeholder: may expand on this later) I like to see an infobox as a quick reference guide to a topic when I don't have the time or desire to read the entire article. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 16:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC) | * (placeholder: may expand on this later) I like to see an infobox as a quick reference guide to a topic when I don't have the time or desire to read the entire article. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 16:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ⚫ | * something something metadata (someone else familiar with this argument can fill this in) | ||
| === Con-infobox === | === Con-infobox === | ||
| * If an article is just a stub, an infobox can be a distraction as far as formatting. Even if an article is further developed, an infobox can disrupt the formatting of a page. | * If an article is just a stub, an infobox can be overwhelming or a distraction as far as formatting. Even if an article is further developed, an infobox can disrupt the formatting of a page. | ||
| :* Can make the article difficult to view on small devices such as phones and tablets. However, I personally think that as Misplaced Pages is primarily a computer presentation, then the solution here is the development of various apps to provide some sort of ] rather than to remove function from the full platform. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 16:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC) | :* Can make the article difficult to view on small devices such as phones and tablets. However, I personally think that as Misplaced Pages is primarily a computer presentation, then the solution here is the development of various apps to provide some sort of ] rather than to remove function from the full platform. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 16:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ⚫ | * something something metadata (someone else familiar with this argument can fill this in) | ||
| * Infoboxes oversimplify information and/or mislead readers | * Infoboxes oversimplify information and/or mislead readers | ||
| * Infoboxes focus on quantifiable details rather than the most significant facts about a subject | * Infoboxes focus on quantifiable details rather than the most significant facts about a subject | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| * They're just plain ugly | * They're just plain ugly | ||
| * Infoboxes present a barrier to editing for newbies | * Infoboxes present a barrier to editing for newbies | ||
| * They are redundant and inferior to a well-written lead, which is also meant to be a quick overview of the topic | |||
| * They lack flexibility | |||
| == Possible items to be addressed == | == Possible items to be addressed == | ||
Revision as of 22:02, 5 April 2013
Scope
- Problem
Quality editors are adding and removing infoboxes across a number of articles including, but not limited to, Classical music composers. This is at times reaching the point of edit warring which can lead to discontent, a lack of harmony, and even blocks and discretionary sanctions. A secondary problem may be the concept that there is a disagreement on community consensus vs. local consensus. (an agreement developed at a project level)
- Proposed solution
To have a discussion to determine the best way forward, hopefully just an informal agreement and consensus, but if a formalized WP:RFC needs to be presented to the global community, then so be it. I'm not a big fan of instruction creep myself, and would rather not get into even more policy setting that reduces any flexibility, but the constant bickering isn't an option either. IF a "formal" RfC with "options" absolutely needs to be created, then I suppose that can be worked out here and we'll draft one.
Viewpoints Discussion
Pro-infobox
- (placeholder: may expand on this later) I like to see an infobox as a quick reference guide to a topic when I don't have the time or desire to read the entire article. — Ched : ? 16:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- something something metadata (someone else familiar with this argument can fill this in)
Con-infobox
- If an article is just a stub, an infobox can be overwhelming or a distraction as far as formatting. Even if an article is further developed, an infobox can disrupt the formatting of a page.
- Can make the article difficult to view on small devices such as phones and tablets. However, I personally think that as Misplaced Pages is primarily a computer presentation, then the solution here is the development of various apps to provide some sort of screen reader rather than to remove function from the full platform. — Ched : ? 16:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- Infoboxes oversimplify information and/or mislead readers
- Infoboxes focus on quantifiable details rather than the most significant facts about a subject
- There is an inherent tension between the desire for a short-and-quick reference (=short box) and the desire for more metadata (=long box)
- They're just plain ugly
- Infoboxes present a barrier to editing for newbies
- They are redundant and inferior to a well-written lead, which is also meant to be a quick overview of the topic
- They lack flexibility
Possible items to be addressed
- the infobox in general - good or bad (should an infobox be considered default or status-quo?)
- info box at Composers and or Classical music projects
- local consensus vs. community consensus
- input of major contributor
- is the term "infobox" correct, or is the term ??? ...