Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes/Archive 12

Including references in infoboxes to prevent edit wars
In editing dozens of music genre articles over the years, I've noticed a pattern that they're far less likely to have WP:GWAR issues if citations are included in the infobox. Can a sentence be added to acknowledge this? Something like
 * Sometimes inline citations are recommended as a measure against frequent long-term disruptions, which are especially prevalent on musical genre or band articles.

One example of this working effectively is on Vaporwave, which has nowhere near the level of infobox fiddling since this edit.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Pictures in election infoboxes
The manual currently says that, "Infoboxes may also include an image, and/ or a map." However, many election article infoboxes include up to 10 images, e.g. Irish general election, 2016 with 9 headshots (although 2 missing) + a map. Personally, I think this produces an unwieldy, overly large result and I prefer the legislative election infobox, e.g. Montenegrin parliamentary election, 2012, but that is currently less commonly used.

I also note that most election article infoboxes use a flag icon, although the manual says these should be avoided.

These are longstanding issues, but have come to mind with the forthcoming UK election and discussion here: Talk:Next_United_Kingdom_general_election. I wondered if the broader community here had any thoughts about election article infoboxes. Bondegezou (talk) 12:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In my opinion I think that one of the purposes of the infobox is to show the most important information concisely, therefore the large infoboxes like in the former are appropriate if the article is long. However if the article is short then the smaller infobox like in the latter should be used. I think we need to establish a threshold for inclusion thought, rather than blindly putting in every candidate. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The idea of some sort of threshold is perhaps better left to the elections WikiProject, but some guidance of how WP:INFOBOX applies would be valuable.
 * I am, myself, wary of the idea of a threshold, it risks creating a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS when we should stick to basic policy. However, a while back, I looked at what the infobox did for the most recent election article in every European country. There was no standard approach to inclusion, but 31 articles included every party who won a seat, 16 included a smaller number of parties than won seats, and 3 included every party who won a seat plus one who didn't. That suggests to me that the best threshold is "every party that won a seat". Bondegezou (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There is, as you can see here strong opposition to not using flag icons. How do we tackle that? Push to remove them as per guidance here, or re-write guidance to add some exceptions? Bondegezou (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we should leave out the flag if you are referring to the UK flag, as it is merely a UK election and not international. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * On the topic of flag icons, I've started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox election. Bondegezou (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Enhanced Infoboxes and Better Search

 * How do we request new infoboxes and improved infoboxes?
 * How do we request a better and more searchable index for finding infoboxes appropriate for the Wikipedia articles we are developing?
 * My most frequently-started and frequently-developed articles are (a) university faculty, (b) journalists, (c) scientists, (d) thought leaders, including philosophers and other intellectual leaders, and (e) politicians and elected officials. MaynardClark (talk) 03:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I responded to this on my talk page. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 04:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Just adding a comment- this is a problem for our newusers, particular those who are experts in their own field. The information is there but finding it takes far too long- and when you do there is too much of it. Two decades into the Wikipedia project, we need to focus on the needs of the actual user- (and the trainer) not on just how clever we have been in the past. A little bit of artificial intelligence could work wonders here. ClemRutter (talk) 09:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Pre-RfC: Flag icons in infoboxes
Per "Avoid flag icons." (WP:INFOBOXUSE) and "Flag icons should not be used in infoboxes" (WP:INFOBOXFLAG), I am considering removing flag items from a large number of infoboxes such as Notre-Dame de Paris, United States Navy SEALs, and Iberian Peninsula. I asked about this at Template talk:Infobox and it was pointed out that Infobox settlement has a section for adding flags. It was suggested that I post an RfC here. The reason this is a pre-RfC and not an RfC is because I want to first gather all existing policies, guidelines and RfCs, and from that information decide exactly what to ask in the RfC (if one is needed). Comments?? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you asking about the  parameter?  That's not an icon but the flag itself, meant to depict the flag for identification purposes, like a logo.  See the flag section (complete with an article link) in the Chicago article's infobox, for example.  Nyttend (talk) 03:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Avoid red links
I made this change and was reverted by here. To just say "Avoid red links" is misleading because WP:NAV, the inspiration for the bullet points, says, "Red links should normally be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles." What I wrote is similar to what WP:NAV says. Otherwise the impression is that we should never have red links in infoboxes, for which there is no basis. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 23:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think there is a material difference between "plausibly" and "very likely." I would be fine with a change to language identical to the current language of WP:NAV. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It is more accurately tied to WP:REDLINK, which says, "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article..." Perhaps WP:NAV needs to be in line with that as well. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 23:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope. There is a difference between articles and navigation boxes.  Navigation boxes exist for navigation, and redlinks cannot be used for navigation.  That is the reason for the treatment that is different from redlinks in articles. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Infoboxes should match the article approach more than the navigation-box approach. An infobox will have details regardless of being linked or not. I agree that a more nuanced approach is appropriate for navigation boxes due your stated reason, but it does not apply here. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 01:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't red links be avoid in infoboxes entirely, given they summarise the article and so the red link should already be in the body? I always think red links in an infobox look really messy because of the density of information. Rob984 (talk) 09:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Rob984 is right and like coffee to hot warnings perhaps we should mention this obvious fact in this MoS.--Moxy (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Red links looking "really messy" is not an excuse not to include them. Nothing in WP:REDLINK denies red links in infoboxes. In addition, not every single thing in an infobox will be in the article body. For the film infobox, there are some credits that do not get mentioned in the body. For example, a film editor who won awards (for other films, not this hypothetical one) should get a red link in the infobox. Blue links are allowed in infoboxes anyway despite the summary/in-the-body excuse. Actually, MOS:DUPLINK supports repeating links in infoboxes, with no discerning between blue or red. Do we need to launch an RfC about this? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think is right here. Infoboxes should match the article approach more than the navigation-box approach. Bondegezou (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * is correct our guide allows them as per WP:SIDEBAR....but in-general they are discouraged. No one should  be removing them just because there red.....but on the other hand they should not sit there indefinitely. So a case by case approach is best.--Moxy (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. See WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. It doesn't explicitly exclude unnecessary links, but I think this clearly contravenes the principal of "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose" and "[excluding] any unnecessary content". The more illegible, cluttered, and messy an infobox becomes, the more useless it is.
 * If there are already red links elsewhere on Wikipedia, one does not need to be placed in the infobox of an article which it lacks significant relevance to. If the only place for a link on Wikipedia is in an infobox, it isn't notable.
 * To the reader, relevant blue links are helpful and not obnoxious. Red links are the opposite. Granted this is the same for the body of the article, but the difference is that the body's main purpose isn't to "[allow] readers to identify key facts at a glance".
 * Frankly, my view is that red links should be in article bodies and—where necessary—in navboxes, but rarely—if ever—in an infobox.
 * Rob984 (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see the value of placing red links in infoboxes. The whole point of red-linking an item is encourage editors to write an article on a notable topic, and red links allow an editor to gauge the demand for such an article. Since an infobox is duplicating information already in the article body and lead, the item will already have a red link in that article, so putting another in the infobox serves no purpose. Blue links in infoboxes are useful because they give a reader a chance to follow them to a topic they may be interested in. Red links provide no such opportunity for the reader, and merely distract from the more valuable links – why do you think we give the guidance in WP:OVERLINK only to link the most valuable items and not dilute them in a sea of blue? That advice goes double for red links. The only reasonable excuse for a red link in a navbox or an infobox is that the editor is about to create an article on that notable topic and turn the red link blue. Other than in that (temporary) situation, there's no justification for red links outside of article text at all. --RexxS (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE has nothing at all to do with links, so it is not a reason to exclude red links. Your response about not linking to the film editor contravenes WP:REDLINK in every sense of the guideline. You are saying we should not link to an obviously-notable film editor at all in any Wikipedia article's infobox even though per WP:REDLINK that could be an opportunity for any editor to soon come by and create an article. Lastly, saying that readers find red links "obnoxious" is irrelevant. Red links are very much part of Wikipedia., as stated before, an infobox does not necessarily repeat everything shown somewhere in the article body, and even if it was a "duplicate", it could easily appear much later, effectively making the more upfront red link the "main" one and thus more actionable. WP:OVERLINK allows for links to be repeated in infoboxes. There's no advice going "double" for red links. Since the feedback is mixed, I'll launch an RfC shortly. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'd welcome a RfC to see what others think. I feel like you're just citing policies and not really considering my points about the unique nature of infoboxes. Principally, this guideline states "Avoid red links", and I don't think this is because of a misunderstand of other guidelines and policies. Infoboxes are also very much a part of Wikipedia, and their specific aims and goals should not be ignored. Also, articles should be complete without the infobox, and editors who only look at an article's infobox probably aren't likely to be expanding coverage on related topics (so the number of missed opportunities will be minimal). Rob984 (talk) 13:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * See below. :) I think we have to remember the spirit of red links per WP:REDLINK, that Wikipedia is always a work in progress. I'm not arguing to get red links permitted so there is always red everywhere. WP:REDLINK says red links are appropriate "if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article". So they can be removed if a simple search engine test shows nothing of value. I don't think the "duplicate" argument is strong because if a red link is good, however brief its existence may be, that implies that it would normally be a blue link if the article already existed. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You say that an infobox does not necessarily repeat everything shown somewhere in the article body, but bring no evidence of that. I dispute it: there are over 2.5 million infoboxes in Wikipedia and you'll be very hard-pushed to find any that contain a notable item that (a) has no article; (b) is not mentioned elsewhere in the text. Let's see these examples you're claiming are so important as to overrule our current practices. Secondly, you say it could easily appear much later, effectively making the more upfront red link the "main" one and thus more actionable, which is nonsense. Red links are for the use of editors, not readers, and I don't agree that disadvantaging readers (which red links do) should take priority over expecting editors to look over an article if they are searching for red links to turn into articles. Although if that's what they are doing, I'm at a loss to understand why they don't just peruse Most-wanted articles as a far more efficient means of doing that. --RexxS (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've been here a decade+ and see no evidence of a trend toward redlinking trivia in infoboxes, nor that it's crucial to article creation. The RfC below is unfortunate, because it's a pile-on of REDYES fandom without any critical thinking applied to the intent and function differences between infoboxes and navboxes. That said, using the same redlink-related language in both guidelines isn't likely to be all that problematic. It's actually tighter than the "could plausibly sustain an article" language (and should remain that way; it's tighter for a reason).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'd welcome a RfC to see what others think. I feel like you're just citing policies and not really considering my points about the unique nature of infoboxes. Principally, this guideline states "Avoid red links", and I don't think this is because of a misunderstand of other guidelines and policies. Infoboxes are also very much a part of Wikipedia, and their specific aims and goals should not be ignored. Also, articles should be complete without the infobox, and editors who only look at an article's infobox probably aren't likely to be expanding coverage on related topics (so the number of missed opportunities will be minimal). Rob984 (talk) 13:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * See below. :) I think we have to remember the spirit of red links per WP:REDLINK, that Wikipedia is always a work in progress. I'm not arguing to get red links permitted so there is always red everywhere. WP:REDLINK says red links are appropriate "if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article". So they can be removed if a simple search engine test shows nothing of value. I don't think the "duplicate" argument is strong because if a red link is good, however brief its existence may be, that implies that it would normally be a blue link if the article already existed. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You say that an infobox does not necessarily repeat everything shown somewhere in the article body, but bring no evidence of that. I dispute it: there are over 2.5 million infoboxes in Wikipedia and you'll be very hard-pushed to find any that contain a notable item that (a) has no article; (b) is not mentioned elsewhere in the text. Let's see these examples you're claiming are so important as to overrule our current practices. Secondly, you say it could easily appear much later, effectively making the more upfront red link the "main" one and thus more actionable, which is nonsense. Red links are for the use of editors, not readers, and I don't agree that disadvantaging readers (which red links do) should take priority over expecting editors to look over an article if they are searching for red links to turn into articles. Although if that's what they are doing, I'm at a loss to understand why they don't just peruse Most-wanted articles as a far more efficient means of doing that. --RexxS (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've been here a decade+ and see no evidence of a trend toward redlinking trivia in infoboxes, nor that it's crucial to article creation. The RfC below is unfortunate, because it's a pile-on of REDYES fandom without any critical thinking applied to the intent and function differences between infoboxes and navboxes. That said, using the same redlink-related language in both guidelines isn't likely to be all that problematic. It's actually tighter than the "could plausibly sustain an article" language (and should remain that way; it's tighter for a reason).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've been here a decade+ and see no evidence of a trend toward redlinking trivia in infoboxes, nor that it's crucial to article creation. The RfC below is unfortunate, because it's a pile-on of REDYES fandom without any critical thinking applied to the intent and function differences between infoboxes and navboxes. That said, using the same redlink-related language in both guidelines isn't likely to be all that problematic. It's actually tighter than the "could plausibly sustain an article" language (and should remain that way; it's tighter for a reason).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Red links in infoboxes
Currently, Manual of Style/Infoboxes says of red links, "Like navigation templates, infoboxes should... Avoid red links. For more information, see WP:REDLINK and WP:REDNOT." Navigation template says of red links, "Red links should normally be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles. Red links can be retained in navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data (geographic divisions, annual events, filmographies, etc.), where deleting red links would leave an incomplete and misleading result.  Even then, editors are encouraged to write the article first." Should MOS:INFOBOX tell editors to avoid adding red links at all to infoboxes? Should it tell editors to avoid red links under certain conditions or to add them under certain conditions? WP:REDLINK outlines Wikipedia's overall editing guideline in regard to red links. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Survey
For a recent example, articles for stations on the Lisbon Metro have recently been created. It's abundantly obvious that for each station on each line, the next station in either direction will be just as notable, and that an article will eventually be forthcoming. On the other hand Albert Einstein's infobox doesn't link to his parents about whom there is nothing notable other than their child. Their notability is never likely to increase. The window of tolerance for redlinks should be days, not weeks or months, with more tolerance where an equivalence exists between the articles (metro stations on the same line, previous/successive prize (Nobel/Olympic/etc) winners) and less tolerance where the notability is less likely to be established (family members). Cabayi (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Allow red links in infoboxes like in the article body, and follow WP:REDLINK in only being used when it could "plausibly sustain an article". See my discussion comment below. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Disallow red links in infoboxes other than when the editor is about to create an article on that notable topic and turn the red link blue. See my discussion comments above. --RexxS (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Allow red links. Removing red links means that you inevitably wind up with unlinked subjects that do have articles on Wikipedia because the editor who wrote the article didn't know about or didn't find the mention of that topic elsewhere that's been deliberately unlinked. It also makes it harder to develop articles on subjects that are notable enough to be in the infobox in the first place. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 07:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Allow red links. It makes little sense to follow a different guideline for infoboxes than for everything else. Infoboxes should follow the same rules as articles - if it's notable, redlink it. Frickeg (talk) 08:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Allow Per WP:CREEP and WP:IAR we should not try micromanage this when commonsense will suffice.  There are much bigger issues like whether an infobox should be used at all. Andrew D. (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * How is WP:IAR relevant when we're establishing the rules? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't use red links in infoboxes, but (for the same information) in the body, because I find the red colour distracting in the infobox. See for example Wilhelm Ehmann and imagine the long name of the school he founded a red (ill) link, as further down. - I don't care if red links are allowed or not, or conditionally allowed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Allow red links, but only if the same link is not also present in the article text – for example, a red link in an infobox image caption. Red links do not only indicate articles that need to be written, but also redirects that need to be created. They are an important aid to building the encyclopaedia, and we don't need draconian laws to prevent us from using them. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Disallow or restrict in the same vein as Wikipedia:Navigation template. Wikipedia:Navigation template has it right, and I don't see that the infobox matter is that much different. Side note: I'll advertise this RfC at a number of Wikipedia projects and at the WP:Manual of Style talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What vein is that? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously, the same rationale that the navigation template goes by; on this matter, I view navigation templates and infoboxes the same way. Going by your vote below, I know that you don't. But I do not see that red links should be in an infobox, which is supposed to be an information box. A red link offers no information, unless the argument is that it lets readers and editors know that there is not yet a Wikipedia article on that topic. Still, I do not believe that the infobox should be a place to address that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Allow red links in infoboxes, if there is potential for an article, as per WP:REDDEAL. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Discourage red links in infoboxes. It's an infobox, and there's no info in a red link (other than, "we ain't got it.") For each red link someone wants to put in the infobox, by all means place it in the article instead, but not in the infobox.  Maybe someone could create a "Related topics" box, where we could encourage red links for related articles that don't exist yes; but not in the infobox, where I expect to find, um, "info". Mathglot (talk) 10:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "not in the infobox, where I expect to find, um, 'info'." Irrespective of the colour of the link, isn't the "info" the text, not the link itself? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "Info" is both in the text, and at the link&mdash;that is, if the link is blue. But there is no info at the link if it is red. From an information theoretic point of view, a red link adds no new information (other than the fact that there is no article available at the link; but that's not a useful think to be apprised of in an Infobox). Mathglot (talk) 06:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The purpose of a redlink is not to "add new information to an infobox", but to encourage or anticipate the creation of an article. If the article is created, the link will turn blue; if it is created, it will not turn blue if not linked, and noone is expected to hunt down and create links after creation. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Allow per Erik and Andrew D. Redlinks encourage content creation.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 11:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Discourage redlinks Encourage the use of some common sense. The likelihood of the redlink targets being notable needs to be taken into consideration.
 * How is what you're describing unique to infoboxes as opposed to article text? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Allow. The guidelines shouldn't be made stricter than what they currently are. If a topic is notable and its inclusion in the infobox is appropriate then a link should normally be included (subject to common sense) regardless of whether the article has been written yet. I don't think there should be any time limits: many articles get created on obscure topics, and it often takes years before the redlinks in them get turned into articles of their own, and once they do, it's generally unlikely that we have the capacity of spare editors' time for going back and making sure the term is still linked. – Uanfala 12:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Avoid Not needed. Red links can go in the body of the text. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Allow per WP:REDLINK Unlike a nav template, the infobox is suppose to summarizes key features of the subject. Therefore red links do not interfere from that purpose and can go further in helping build a better encyclopedia. Nav templates, on the other hand, are suppose to link related Wikipedia articles together. In other words, it implies that the either articles already exist, once existed, or will soon be created. Since the functions of wikilinks in nav templates are different from those in an infobox, there is no reason to have stricter guidance on red links in an infobox than on nav template links. In fact, it should be the other way around. —Farix (t &#124; c) 14:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * AllowFleets (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Allow as per Erik. In many cases it is even useful to link to a film director or actor one feels there should be an article about them but it is missing. In cases where an article is not needed, we should avoid redlinking. Hoverfish Talk 15:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Allow with common sense. If it is the thing nonsensical to have as a page, somebody can remove that link. Pandeist (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Allow as current policy. Redlinks are for potentially developing articles, especially ones that are in draft. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Allow Creation and editing of infoboxes is more common than navboxes and is something the rookie editor will do. So it is reasonable to expect that the general set of rules regarding redlinks apply. That would be WP:REDLINK and WP:OVERLINK. Agathoclea (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC) ps. just to comment on a previous comment: also a redlink is info as the linktitel tell the reader who the father, successor, or director is. A bluelink in addition leads to *further* information. That is not the main purpose of the infobox, as opposed to the navbox. Agathoclea (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * discourage red links they should only be placed in the body of the text...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * For any particular reason? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Allow: Redlinks are for content creation, and development. Although I encourage editors to create one if a redlink is in a existing articles. KGirl  (Wanna chat?) 18:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Allow red links in infoboxes, if there is potential for an article, as per WP:REDDEAL. In general, I avoid red links, unless I am finding that the subject is covered in several Wikipedia articles. In that case, red links can be helpful, particularly if there is a pattern of wording the link in a manner to address disambiguation, common name usage, etc.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Allow red links in infoboxes. There's no real problem to fix here, certainly not with some hard-line rule.  How does being picky in this tiny area help build a better WP?  It's just fodder for needless bickering between editors.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Allow and encourage the use of ill. Chances are, the article exists in other language Wikipedia. Renata (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I second encouraging the use of ill/illm. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Allow: there's no reason to make infoboxes a special case—if they're reasonable for text, and are fields that would be included if they were bluelinks, then of course they should be allowed. If the links are plausible, there should be WP:DEADLINE for turning them into bluelinks—I've created articles filled with redlinks (and ills) and have slowly picked them off over the years.  If you don't like any particular redlink, then the onus is on you to create the article or demonstrate the implausibility of creating one. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Allow – Unlike navigation templates, which exist for the sole purpose of navigation thus making red links useless, I see no rationale as to why red links should be impermissible in infoboxes (provided, of course, that the links are to create articles about notable subjects). And is right that the use of ill should be strongly encouraged. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Allow per Curley Turkey and the IP directly above me. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Allow, much as per articles. If a redlink comes up in a sense of some sort of dimension description, for a quantity in an infobox, then editors are encouraged to fill that redlink with a minimal stub, rather than removing the link. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Allow Most things liked to from infoboxes are going to be notable (e.g. birth/death places, positions in governments, successors). Infoboxes on politicians from developing countries may contain redlinks for all these examples and hopefully this will encourage article creation. Number   5  7  13:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Disallow. Including redlinks in the infobox contravenes the principal of an infobox: "allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance". Infoboxes' contain a high density information, and it is paramount that they are clear and uncluttered. I'm sure everyone can recognise that red links are distracting to an extent, regardless of where they are placed. The reason they should be omitted from the infobox in particular is because of its specific nature, as I just described. I struggle to see any justification for including them in infoboxes, other than "there's no reason not to" (which as I've explained, I think there is). The infobox summaries the article, so the red links should already appear in the article body. If an editor navigates to an article and only looks at its infobox, are they likely to be creating articles on related topics? Fairly unlikely. I made some additional points in the discussion directly above this RfC. Rob984 (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Rob984, I don't see a comment by you in the Discussion section below. Didn't you mean to comment there? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Allow as per the guideline that a redlinked item in an infobox should be about a subject which has the potential to link to an actual article someday. It can be very helpful for article creators to get an idea for an article. And I don't agree that it should only be kept if an article is imminent. However that being said, I also think that removing redlinks is perfectly acceptable, either in the infobox or in the body of the article, if the editor feels that they will never be developed into an article. Onel 5969  TT me 14:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Allow - redlinks are there to encourage article creation, if the redlink target is notable, there is no problem linking it. In my view, this is separate from navigation templates, which are there to help find existing articles linked to the topic. Infoboxes are immediately visible, making the redlink more prominent. This may encourage new users to edit, and overcome any (mis)perception that anything worth writing about already has an article. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Allow red links for things that should have articles, but don't yet (examples "predecessor" or "adjacent suburbs"). The red links contain information in the text of the link (which would also be present by not linking), but also save the author who later creates the article from having to find all of the places that don't but should link to it and the red link gets counted in the "missing articles" lists for wikiprojects to identify key missing articles. --Scott Davis Talk 22:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Allow unless the link would be improper in running text. Aside from identifying topics that need articles (WP:REDDEAL, first item), redlinks to reasonable topics make it simpler when you write the article.  For example, two years ago, I changed the photo in the infobox at Adams County, Illinois (diff), and I included a link to Adams County Courthouse (Illinois).  When I created this article yesterday, WhatLinksHere showed me that the county article already had a link to the courthouse article: I didn't need to add a link from the county article, but more importantly, I didn't need to think of adding it — I added it when I was thinking about it already (when writing the caption), but there's no guarantee that I'd remember to do that two years later.  PS, responding to comments down below, here's an example.  For many US counties, the courthouse doesn't warrant a mention in the article text, but it's almost always a sort of symbol for the county, so a picture of the courthouse is usually good for the infobox.  Linking from the caption to the article would be helpful already, but since the courthouse likely won't be mentioned in the body, that's likely going to be the only link to the courthouse article.  Nyttend (talk) 03:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Allow, but only if a plausible article can be created.--KTo288 (talk) 09:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Allow, just like in the article body. Double sharp (talk) 10:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Allow, per . -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Allow per KTo288. Mjroots (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Allow per Simon Burchell and many others. Redlinks perform useful functions, notably encouraging article creation. If an article is unlikely, a redlink should not be used, but this is already policy. Reify-tech (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Allow per WP:REDLINK. Why would the info-box be any different? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Continue to discourage: Infoboxes summarize key information already found in the article body, which is the place to redlink it. The redlinking rationale for navboxes is completely different: if it's in the navbox, it's considered a key topic in the category, and we want the article created ASAP. Infobox details are often trivia.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Allow under the same standard as in the body - no redlink if an article is unlikely, perhaps somewhat more strictly applied. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Allow For the same reason as leaving an open grave: somebody will come along sooner or later & fall in. Or fill it with something. And in an infobox, where there should be links out, finding redlinks would seem to indicate both more importance to having one & more likelihood of getting one (or there wouldn't be a link at all).    Gravedigger Jones   calling Harlem  07:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Allow but the presence of redlinks should be an indication that the subject may not yet be mature enough to merit an infobox--which, I'll note, are never mandatory. Jclemens (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Allow per WP:REDLINK Ealdgyth - Talk 13:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Allow, but reluctantly. My opinion is that a topic should only be redlinked once per page, and most infobox content should be mentioned later in the article, so the body of the article is a better place to redlink. But as for casts of movies / episodes of TV etc., I have seen plenty of cases where it's reasonable to include small amounts of information in the infobox only, and in those situations, it may be acceptable to redlink a person in an infobox (of course, only when the person is clearly notable). — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 11:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

 * See above discussion for comments leading up to the RfC.

MOS:INFOBOX is extremist in its language banning all red links where it could easily copy the inspiring navigation template guideline's language, "Red links should normally be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles." Furthermore, linking in infoboxes should be more lenient than linking in navigation templates because the infoboxes will list the pertinent topic details regardless of whether or not linking is involved. Per WP:OVERLINK, the infobox can repeat (blue) links in the article body. A red link should also exist to become blue. There should not be any exclusionary treatment (especially rooted in complaining about how it looks, which has zero merit) that requires an infobox's term to be linked only after the article is created. When a bold editor creates an article, all pertinent red links in the appropriate places (such as the infobox) should exist to be "activated" as if there was always an article all this time. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

It is poor reasoning to attempt to deconstruct each word of guidance to try to make a point. Get back to basics. Reason dictates that the purpose of red links is not to help the readers, but to help editors who can check [What links here] on an article they are drafting in mainspace. And that's their only purpose. If a linkable, notable item is important enough to be in an infobox, them it will appear – and be properly linked – in the text as well, therefore repeating the red link in an infobox adds nothing for the editor who already has that [What links here], and serves as a powerful distraction for the reader from other, worthy links. No reasoning can demonstrate any value whatsoever for red links in infoboxes. --RexxS (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, get back to basics. Red links help Wikipedia grow. Your claim that red links serve "as a powerful distraction" is a canard rooted in disliking the sight of them, or believing it is valid to acquiesce to those who don't like the sight of them. There is zero policy-based or guideline-based support to remove them to improve the aesthetic. The simple fact is that it is permissible for the infobox to repeat links that are in the article body. This repetition is permitted to help readers why? Because different groups of readers look at a topic differently. Some want to look up something they know are in the infobox, some will read the lead section, some will read the entire article body or only parts of it. Readers are not distinct from editors, either. WP:REDDEAL says, "Red links serve the purpose of notifying readers that a need exists in Wikipedia for creation of a new article with at least minimal information content... The red link also gives readers the opportunity to click on it to create the needed article on the spot." And not all red links in an infobox are necessarily visible within the same view or even in the body itself. As I explained, the film infobox has credits whose names may not necessarily appear in the article body. There could also be chronology-related terms (preceding work or succeeding work) not necessarily mentioned in the article body either. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Red links in articles do help Wikipedia grow. However, duplicating red links in infoboxes does absolutely nothing to help Wikipedia grow and provide worthless links that dilute the value of useful blue links in infoboxes. The advice in WP:OVERLINK is compelling:
 * "An overlinked article contains an excessive number of links, making it difficult to identify links likely to aid the reader's understanding significantly. A 2015 study of log data found that "in the English Wikipedia, of all the 800,000 links added ... in February 2015, the majority (66%) were not clicked even a single time in March 2015, and among the rest, most links were clicked only very rarely", and that "simply adding more links does not increase the overall number of clicks taken from a page. Instead, links compete with each other for user attention.""
 * Red links in articles do help Wikipedia grow. However, duplicating red links in infoboxes does absolutely nothing to help Wikipedia grow and provide worthless links that dilute the value of useful blue links in infoboxes. The advice in WP:OVERLINK is compelling:
 * "An overlinked article contains an excessive number of links, making it difficult to identify links likely to aid the reader's understanding significantly. A 2015 study of log data found that "in the English Wikipedia, of all the 800,000 links added ... in February 2015, the majority (66%) were not clicked even a single time in March 2015, and among the rest, most links were clicked only very rarely", and that "simply adding more links does not increase the overall number of clicks taken from a page. Instead, links compete with each other for user attention.""


 * "links compete with each other for user attention": We're writing this encyclopedia for its readers not for editors, and one red link per item is more than sufficient. So there are plenty of reasons – as well as the policy & guidelines that you find so vital – that support removing red links. Not because of the aesthetic, but because of the competition they provide for genuine links that are likely to aid the reader's understanding significantly. WP:REDDEAL confuses readers with editors. How many cases do you know of a reader who spots a red link in an article and can successfully generate the "better than minimalist marker stubs" that REDDEAL requires? Answer: none. And if they were able to do that (i.e. they are actually editors), they can just as easily do it from the body of an article. There's no need to duplicate it in the infobox. if the film infobox has credits whose names may not necessarily appear in the article body, and they are notable, and they have no article, then give us examples and we can make sure that such notable people have at least a mention in the article text, where they should be. The same goes for succession boxes: if notable items are important enough to be mentioned in the infobox, then they certainly ought to be important enough to be discussed in the text. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE applies: "keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored)." --RexxS (talk) 19:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This completely ignores the possibility of the non-infobox red link appearing elsewhere from the same view as the infobox or even not at all in the article body. There is not even put forth an agreement to allow red links in such cases. I work with film articles, and credited persons not always mentioned in the article body can include the producers, screenwriters, editors, and cinematographers. There are production companies mentioned in the infobox not always mentioned either. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE says, "As with any guideline, there will be exceptions where a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text, but where that information may be placed in the infobox." Even if red links for such entities existed in the article body, it would not compete with the ones in the infobox. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Where are the examples? You are proposing to ditch sensible general advice designed to improve the readers' experience to satisfy a tiny number of editors who produce infoboxes that breach our guidelines. The exceptions to INFOBOXPURPOSE are meant to be just that - exceptions, not the general rule. Your proposed change would allow a myriad of red links in every infobox where they would serve no useful purpose and merely distract, despite being already red-linked in the article body. It's an untenable position. --RexxS (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In the 11 years I've known WP Film, I can reassure you it has been much more than "a tiny number of editors" involved in developing and maintaining the huge number of films articles Wikipedia has. However, the way I understand what Eric is proposing, is not about satisfying any number of editors in their tasks, but about improving Wikipedia become richer in content. And I agree that careful red linking in the infobox, for example, to a non-American director from within a film article about a film that won an important festival award, like in Cannes, or Berlin, is a marker that says "we need this article" and calls for anyone who knows more or who is willing to volunteer one's times in creating it. This is what Wikipedia is about. A motivated reader can become an editor at any time. As for arguments involving "the readers experience", I have heard many and I am convinced that they are just rhetoric. We can not know that the absense of red links from infoboxes improves the readers' experience. Hoverfish Talk 20:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll add that for redlink actors that could potentially develop into articles, that it would be helpful to add an embedded note on the articles that have the redlinks saying the actor's article is in draft status or recently RFD delinked as a potential draft. That way the other editors know it's being worked on. Otherwise the redlinks can be removed if no one is on it or it got removed by an AFD. Some RFD recent ones include: Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_July_4. See also Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_24 for the Dunkirk actors which were redlinked and now have articles. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I was just a reader of Wikipedia for five or six years before becoming an editor. I can't recall a single incidence of my reading experience being impeded by a redlink. Where does this come from? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Red! It's a scary color.  Maybe readers that see it will... um...   Sorry, I've got nothing.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Looking through the talk page archives, I can only find one previous discussion about red links. Based on that discussion, a line about avoiding red links never gained consensus, but added it to the guideline anyway. Give this, I suggest that the entire statement be completely struck from the guideline for not having consensus, and given the discussion above, still does not. —Farix (t &#124; c) 16:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking at that discussion, I see that MOS editor SMcCandlish weighed in, and seemed to be against red links in the infobox. I have agreed and disagreed with SMcCandlish a number of times. Because of that, and because I am always interested in what he has to state about a MOS issue or other guideline or policy issue, I wonder if his opinion on this matter is still the same or has changed. Either way, it's clear that, per this latest discussion, consensus will be allowing red links in the infobox. I just worry about how open that allowance will be. The page currently states, "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." So because of this, I think that allowance of red links in the infobox should follow the navigation template rationale -- "Red links should normally be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles" -- which is one of the RfC suggestions. Even with that, I still have concerns about putting red links in the infobox, per the arguments against doing so. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I'll stand by what I said then: "Infoboxes are supposed to be summaries of key information; redlinks in them are an annoyance and a distraction that serve no purpose. If the MOS:INFOBOX instructions are being followed, such that information is being put not only into the infobox but also in the article body, then anything you would redlink in the infobox will be redlinked already in the article's main text, thus serving the 'redlinking helps inspire article creation' purpose some but not all editors firmly believe in." Redlinks in navboxes are more tolerated; everything put into a navbox is expected to exist as an article, the sooner the better, as a key topic in a thematic group of topics (i.e., a category).  Detailia in infoboxes are just basic facts, not necessarily important, and the link targets in them are unrelated to each other.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As it has been stated before, red links may exist only in the infobox or may be the only one in the same screen view (meaning the article body's same red link may be later in the article body). There certainly can exist a set of articles where there is a red link in the lead section and a red link in the adjacent infobox, just like there exist blue links in both. I still don't get why this is portrayed as so onerous. Sometimes only the lead section is read, sometimes only the infobox is read. I assume that with mobile views, there is less likelihood of both red links appearing in the same screen. If this opposition is rooted in the belief that red links do not help article creation, then challenge WP:REDLINK as a guideline. Otherwise, as long as the guideline applies, red links should be available to indicate what can be done. If a film producer without a Wikipedia article is listed in the film infobox and is evidenced via search engine test to be plausibly notable, then an editor should be able to add a red link for that person. It seems unreasonable to prevent this on the off-chance that someone will have to see two red links in the same view and be doubly distracted. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As I've said, an editor who only looks at an article's infobox is realistically unlikely to be creating articles on related topics. Nobody is arguing that red links do not help article creation, but rather that they do not need to be plastered everywhere possible to be effective, and that this is counter productive to the aims of other guidelines, namely MOS:INFOBOX. I reiterate, red links have little impact in the body, but in the infobox where there is a lot of dense information, they can be distracting.
 * WP:LINKS states under "What generally should be linked":
 * Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully
 * Articles with relevant information
 * Articles explaining words of technical terms, jargon or slang expressions/phrases
 * Proper names that are likely to be unfamiliar to readers
 * Would a link which only has the opportunity to appear in the infobox (presumably for the completeness of the infobox) "help readers understand the article more fully" or contain "relevant information"? i.e., aside from technical terms, jargon, slang expressions/phrases and proper names, should such a topic even be blue linked? If it is relevant to the article, surely it should appear in the body?
 * What it boils down to in my view is that the effectiveness of red links in the infobox is less then that of those in the body, but the negative impact of them is much greater.
 * Rob984 (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Rob984. Furthermore, we're not supposed to be redundantly linking "in the same page view" at all; we're only supposed to link the same thing twice in the article if they'e separate by a long "distance" of text.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Infoboxes have a general exception on the "x number of links within y space" point (even if undocumented), whatever the color of the link. --Izno (talk) 03:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Erik, looks like the redlink additions have the wide support here. --George Ho (talk) 08:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , I agree, though I hesitate to close the matter as the one who started the RfC. The consensus seems strong, but I cannot tell if it is strong enough to not be disputed by those who argued against red links in infoboxes. I guess I could be bold... I'll do it shortly, unless others have useful thoughts, like if WP:AN/RFC is the better path. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Update guidelines
A discussion has been initiated, relevant to this guideline at Village pump (policy). -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  05:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Standardising map parameters in infoboxes
I'm proposing to standardise the map parameter names in infoboxes; please see, and comment at, Village pump (technical). Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Images and infobox
On Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80, I saw two images above the infobox. What do others think? I moved one of them but was reverted. More questions in the peer review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Giving a death date twice in infoboxes
There is an RfC pertinent to this page at Template talk:Marriage. DrKay (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Deprecated or non-existent parameters
I'm pretty sure that I am right in saying that deprecated or non-existent parameters in infoboxes - the sort that flag a red warning when an article is seen in Preview - should be removed. Am I? Is there any guidance for this to which I could link? - Sitush (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily removed: in some cases a fix is more appropriate, for example - years and events were invalid, and years1 and events1 should have been used instead. Removal would have lost that information -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that makes sense, thanks, but what about, say, a parameter for "nickname" that doesn't exist at all. Obviously, such a parameter could be added to the infobox but I'm assuming consensus is that it should not be. Eg: the back-and-forth that went on here. - Sitush (talk) 09:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This later edit seems relevant. There appear to be differences between the two templates. Perhaps they should be merged. --Izno (talk) 11:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Better yet, fix the template to not be user-hateful, and have it treat year as an alias of year1 and so on, like all our saner templates do with such parameters. This should not have to be hunted down in a zillion articles when poor template coding is the obvious problem for such cases. That said, yes, often there will be easily fixable parameters from people misspelling them, just guessing at them, or from one infobox being swapped for another that doesn't have the same parameter names.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  22:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That would not necessarily be useful: consider that in the related the years and years1 parameters are distinct, and in many articles (such as Banbury railway station), both are used.
 * Originally, the and  templates both had a single pair of parameters, years and events into each of which a list would be placed. It was observed that this was not good for accessibility since all of the dates would be read out before any of the events (e.g. "1850 1900 1960 station opened renamed station closed"), and so the years1/events1 through years9/events9 pairs were introduced so that screen readers would announce something like "1850 station opened 1900 renamed 1960 station closed". In the case of  the years and events parameters were removed after conversion was complete, but for some reason,  still has them and some people use them as a kind of substitute for the non-existent years0/events0 pair.
 * I haven't looked into it, but I imagine that something similar may have happened for the and  templates. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 13:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Infobox
We need a stricter approach to infoboxes. Which articles 'should have' them & which articles 'should not'. GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We need no such thing. The only places where I see disputes are on biogs of classical composers, and it's already been agreed that each article needs to be considered individually, via a discussion on its own talk page. To overturn that policy would require a motion at WP:ARCA. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC) amended Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Considering the outcome of this Village pump (proposals) followed by the opening of this thread the OP may want to read WP:FORUMSHOPPING. While I can understand the frustration dropping the stick may be the best way to move forward. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 17:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Just trying to end the disputes over the addition/removal of bio infoboxes. The article-by-article method is repetitively frustrating. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, then don't involve yourself in those discussions, and you won't be frustrated. -- Jayron 32 06:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I sympathise with those in the front lines of the ongoing infobox wars. I concur that here perhaps isn't the place to solve those. However, would it be appropriate to consider whether guidance should be clearer about their optionality? Bondegezou (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Internal links in an infobox
Under the "Purpose of an infobox" section, there is a sentence: "Avoid links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function.". I have great reservations about this. In my opinion, this is a silly rule. The infobox is the Core Element of an article, much more critical than the table of contents. I for one generally don't pay a great deal of attention to the table of contents. I tend to skip the contents unless the article is very long and poorly organised.

I noticed that a lot of articles, especially those articles about a sporting tournament, have internal links to participating teams and venues etc. This manual of style has been implemented across a variety of sports articles very consistently for a long time, and no one seems to have a problem about it. So why should we enforce something that is not going to improve the overall quality of the articles?

I suggest that we abolish this "No internal links in the infobox" rule. What do your guys think? Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks. 2001:8003:8612:EA00:79E0:56E2:C488:842A (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think rewording it as a guideline that states a presumption against them unless they are particularly useful in context. A good example is in articles about long-running bands that have had lots of members at various times, the infobox will contain a link to the members/past members sections where an often complex history is explained in a manner that an infobox cannot do. Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)