This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pigsonthewing (talk | contribs) at 10:53, 12 July 2013 (cc). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 10:53, 12 July 2013 by Pigsonthewing (talk | contribs) (cc)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
← 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)