Talk:Tom Terriss

How about an info box
There is a note on the page about not adding an infobox unless there is a consensus to do so. Is there any reason not to add an infobox?--MerielGJones (talk) 11:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this may be the wrong way round. A more appropriate quesition when someone wants to change a longstanding status quo is what is the need to add one? - SchroCat (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Very many Wikipedia pages have infoboxes. I find them useful when reading about new topics or people. I assumed the reason some pages lacked infoboxes was because editors had not got around to it, as in other information or formatting that many pages lack (because Wikipedia is so big). When I attended a Wikipedia Editathon I was given the impression that infoboxes were something that should be present on a page. Have I missed something? --MerielGJones (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know some other articles have them, but why the need for one on this page? How would this article be improved? There is certainly no rule or requirement for an IB on a page. They should only be added to a page is there is an actual benefit. In terms of biographies in the liberal arts field, the benefits are always rather debateable, given the key information about an individual is all in the first sentence or first paragraph of the lead. - SchroCat (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please stop trying to push infoboxes into existing articles. As we have discussed before, while sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not. See arbitration report: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in this article because: (1) The box would emphasize unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box would be redundant. (3) It would take up valuable space at the top of the article and hamper the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw vandalism, fancruft and repeated arguments among editors about what to include. (5) The infobox template creates a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It would discourage readers from reading the text of the article. (7) IBs distract editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you just copy/paste that to all infobox discussions? Something to keep in mind All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to not turn discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general. PackMecEng (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You obviously didn't read carefully what I wrote, all of which is relevant to this article, of which I am a major long-term contributor. My talk page contribution above is also extremely civil, whereas you are a person who has not contributed to this article and is here only to make trouble. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Didn't actually address what I wrote or the concerns I had there did you? See the part I quoted from the ARBCOM case that is important here is the and to not turn discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general which is exactly what your post was doing. The fact that you copy/paste it to multiple pages proves that point. Now if you want to discuss why it is not appropriate for this article specifically, rather then general pontificating, I will start taking you seriously. Otherwise your opinion will rightly be ignored. PackMecEng (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * PLEASE can we all try and keep this civil? I have elsewhere praised this thread for being polite and constructive (in contrast to the one I was in), and I would hate for this to go the same way. - SchroCat (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed! PackMecEng (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)