User:Tim riley/sandbox1

SchroCat's wisdom on IBs
IBs are a long way short of crucial for Wikidata, and I've found that a manual editing of the Wikidata page for an item is the best way to go to ensure the "facts" are correct. With the dissemination of base gobbets of information, ripped from context and understanding, appearing in things like the boxes on the right hand of a google search, it means that sadly some people looking for knowledge stop at the Google search page and don't bother to visit us, and thus they don't ever actually learn anything, outside the banalest of drops of data. Wikidata is a huge problem for me: it mistakes data for knowledge and facts for understanding, without ever understanding the difference. It is the triumph of factoids over understanding, and a horrible, horrible concept. On the few occasions I have ever visited the alien pages of Wikidata, I've found the pages there to carry serious errors, but that's the problem of trying to get computers to rip "facts" from anything: they always get the wrong end of the stick! (And if you like to serve "structured data", Wikidata also picks up information from the hidden PersonData field (or similar) at the foot of the page).

Preserved discussion about side nav-boxes
(the box page may be about to be deleted, so am preserving the quite illuminating discussion on its talk page). From the talk page for the side nav-box for Charles Lecocq.

Shape
I'm wondering if the present template is the best means of getting the information onto the relevant pages. At the moment it appears in different positions on different pages (and not at all on one, I see). Would it, perhaps, be better to go for the page-width collapsible style, used chez Fauré, Offenbach, Ravel, Debussy et al? Readers get to know they can be found at the foot of the page, and they capture a lot of info in a small space. Comments v. welcome on this point.  Tim riley  talk   23:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems that footer-style navigation templates are now the preferred format, although they are not universally used. I think the Category:Operas by composer templates use the top-right format, but I don't know how many of the are used. OTOH, Category:Opera templates use the footer style. I think both formats work and have no preference. If you or anybody else want to create Template:Charles Lecocq as a footer-style navbox, I don't see any pitchforks. However, if not, this navbox ought to be present on all Lecocq's works. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I personally prefer text boxes at the bottom and a photograph at the top, but I am flexible either way and happy to leave it to the discretion of anyone who wants to improve an article. - SchroCat (talk) 09:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As suggested, I've had a go at creating a text-only footer-style template: here, which please amend ab lib, naturally.  Tim riley  talk   10:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I prefer the footer navbox, as Verdi, Gounod and Britten have. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been working on La fille de Madame Angot and have experimentally put the new template at the foot of it: comments pro or con are cordially invited.  Tim riley  talk   11:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Personally prefer a footer navigation box and a photo of the composer top right. Dreamspy (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the text-only template is better. It seems that this kind of template has largely been superseded by the text-only templates. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with Ssilvers and others above. A navi box at the foot of the page is preferable so that an appropriate photo can be placed in the top right corner. I think the text only box placed by Tim riley at the foot of La fille de Madame Angot is what is required on all such articles. Jack1956 (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I am very grateful to everyone who has contributed above, and propose – after a few days' gap to leave room for any contrary views – to add or replace templates accordingly.  Tim riley  talk   20:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)