User talk:Crazychickennthang

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like it here! Here are a few important links for newcomers:

Reliable sources, CITE, WP:V and WP:NPOV How to edit a page; How to develop articles; Editing tutorial Manual of Style; Writing better articles The five pillars of Wikipedia Editing by consensus – working well with other Wikipedians

You've already found the Teahouse. If you'd like more help with editing or otherwise, you can sign up at the new users log, post a question at the Help Desk, or ask me on my talk page.

Please sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. It is a good idea to read the most recent entries at the bottom of the Talk page of an existing article before making major changes to it, to see if your proposed change has been discussed before. Before I make a major change to an article, I often make a proposal on the Talk page to see if anyone minds.

Again, welcome! -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived
Okay. Thanks for letting me know!

Infoboxes
Not every article should have an infobox. The Manual of Style says: "Whether to include an infobox ... is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields 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". In many articles: (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. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

MOS:REPEATLINK
Before you add a link, please make sure that it is not already linked in the body of the article. See WP:REPEATLINK for more information. See also WP:OVERLINK. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)