Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes/2013 RfC

Update
I can see that I have a TON of stuff to catch up on here. There's a lot of reading on this subject I need to do, some email, some real/life things, An article or two I'm trying to expand, and 2 new wiki projects to get acquainted with (wikidata and some foundation site.) Suffice to say that I'll be busy and may not be moving as quickly as I had hoped with this. The page is of course open to all - but I'm not going to go "real public" in any big hurry either. The one thing I will say is that while it's in my userspace - I will remove any crude, snide, or snipping comments; fortunately - there hasn't been any of that .. YEAAAA. :) I'll get back to everyone ASAP.  @Iri - I definitely do want to get back to you on the SEO stuff too, although that's a different topic.  I've been out of that loop for about 6-8 years, so I know I haven't kept up with that technology.  Talk to you folks soon. — Ched :  ?  20:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. It looks like you started this as a draft RfC. I think that's a great idea. However, I don't have a lot of experience with drafting RfC's but I would have expected that the drafting would be concentrating on the structure and the list of questions, with strict prohibition on delving into the arguments until it is open. I hope it is as simple as inevitable, hard to keep people from sharing their positions ahead of time, but I fear it will come across as a fait accomplis if opened to the public after some of the issues have been thrashed out.


 * Please let me know your general thoughts, as I have a lot of interest ant his topic, and would like to help craft the RfC. I'd also like to contribute to the content, but only later.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  16:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Excuse me gatecrashing. I recently discovered this draft Rfc and I have many concerns, not least that it specifically targets classical music editors. It seems to have been framed from the 'metapedian' point of view that community harmony, structural uniformity etc. are of overriding importance rather than the competing 'exopedian' view that we are trying to publish correct information and serve the reader. For example. the introductory section, 'Scope', doesn't even mention the encyclopedia.


 * Participants in the drafting also seem to be largely from the 'metapedian' camp. AFAIK none of the editors with reservations about the application of infoboxes, who have participated in previous debates and Rfcs, were invited to take part or found the draft. Nor are any of the 'moderates' — the people who are broadly pro metadata but who recognise publishing issues — involved. So it seems more of a referendum, crafted to achieve a particular result, than a genuine Rfc. I think it would cause even more fighting, rather than lead to improved consensus. I hope it can be dropped.


 * WikiProject Composers is now on its last legs. There are only about a dozen active editors left from what was a dynamic, high quality project around 2007-2008. Launching an Rfc targeting classical music will present editors with the choice of participating in yet another gargantuan time sink or looking for the exit. If they are rational, they'll opt for the latter. Once again, I think it would be better not to proceed with this. It's simply the wrong approach. Thank you and regards.  Klein zach  23:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * May I ask why you "discovered" this recently, while I linked to it 16 May? - The last entry (not counting Nikkimaria's withdrawal) is dated April. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Gerda Arendt: I was probably distracted by your Richard Wagner infobox, so I failed to take note of the text underneath. -- Klein zach  02:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have the impression that you (and some others) lose the ability of looking at the facts when they only see an infobox, - a state of mind close to "un-reasonable". (The text appears not underneath, but left of the box - at least on my screen - where people normally start reading.) What can we do? The above summarizes to me to "Don't think, it is a time sink." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Had the link description been made clear, i.e. a draft RfC on Infoboxes, it might have attracted considerably more notice. By the time Kleinzach got to the Wagner talk page, the section was already quite lengthy and looked like this. In any case, the fact that he didn't click on your somewhat cryptic link at the very top of that section, does not negate the very valid main points he is making here concerning the way this draft RfC has been framed and the unorthodox opening it up to discussion by a limited few who were either explicitly told about it, or who found out more or less by accident before it even goes public. The latter point was also made by Sphilbrick above when he refers to it as potentially coming across (rightly or wrongly) as an RfC whose outcome is a fait accompli. Voceditenore (talk) 08:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To my understanding, it is an abandoned draft. I never even commented, but found useful ideas - or so I thought. Don't be afraid, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not remotely "afraid". I was simply pointing out that Kleinzach has made valid and helpful points here (as did Sphilbrick) and that dismissing them over a quibble about how he should have clicked on your cryptic link and taking his failure to notice the link as evidence of a "state of mind close to 'un-reasonable'" is not only unfair, but also completely misses the point. If the draft is "abandoned" and Ched doesn't want any further comments on it or on this talk page, I'm sure he'll say so. Voceditenore (talk) 10:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am a bit amazed that a link that spells out in full length what it is about, can be called "cryptic". Sorry if "un-reasonable" wasn't recognizable as a play with words, - "unreasonable" is often used in discussions, such as here, and don't always agree with its use. - I leave it to the reader to look for reason in the Wagner "discussion". - I don't think Ched wants no further comment here, but I believe he doesn't want to 'go "real public"' any more, as he phrased it above and originally may have wanted. He will watch here and speak himself. - I confess that I am afraid. I miss respect for every editor as a human being (and I don't think of myself now). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Gerda, your digressions about your views of the Wagner talk page discussion and "respect for every editor" (which you certainly did not show to Kleinzach on this page), have nothing to do with the current way this RfC is framed or being drafted. That is the substance of what his comments were about, and those of SPhilbrick. They are comments with which I concur. Voceditenore (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I am concerned about the idea that a userspace draft is suddenly becoming some sort of Big Deal. Userspace drafts are just that; a place to play with ideas and track things prior to going to one drahmahz board or another.  I also am concerned to see irrelevant side issues trotting in here, and also am concerned about the attacks on Gerda, who is one of the best good-faith editors on wiki, continuing in this venue.   The folks who have had issues with her continue to forget that what to them is "cryptic" is a simple reflection that Gerda, though fluent in English, does not speak it as her first language and sometimes takes a "less is more" approach to wording - something that many wikipedia editors should do; less tl;dr would actually advance the conversation. Kleinzach got precisely as much "respect" as was warranted in this situation.  Montanabw (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * With respect (which native users of English will know means 'with disrespect') it is not necessary to make excuses for Gerda as if she were in some way 'differently abled' (as PC has it). She is perfectly intelligent and chooses to edit on English WP although it is not her first language. She must therefore take her chances and find her way according to the choice she has made - and I am confident that she can, if she wants to. So she's not exonerated from the responsibilities we all have as editors to try to be nice to each other, not to stir up trouble, and to learn from our mistakes. It is appallingly patronising to her to take the attitude 'There, there, it's only Gerda'. It is rather as if I wrote of another editor whom I have in mind, 'Well, we shouldn't be too hard on him, it's not really his fault that he has the attitude of a psychopath to those who disagree with him'. We all have our responsibilites, and we all ought to undertake them. Montanabw might trying displaying respect to both sides, if he really seeks to develop a consensus. Peaceably, --Smerus (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I might add btw (in case anyone starts jumping on a bandwagon) that I have no 'issues' with Gerda that I do not discuss with her perfectly amicably (or anyway as amicably as a twisted misanthrope like myself can).--Smerus (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As can be seen here, - thank you, Smerus, no twisted misanthrope at all if I understand those terms and you right, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Smerus, but just speaking for myself here, ever notice that another editor I respect, a user formerly known as Malleus Fatorum, sometimes just called people bad names ("fool" and "idiot" being among the kinder ones...), would all the folks coming down on Gerda prefer that approach to conflict over Gerda's spare prose and gentle humor? I think not. Here is a Catch-22: when Gerda is nice and seeking consensus, she's "patronizing;" she stands up for herself, she's "disrespectful." Frankly, I see a pattern on WP that consistently misattributes motive to editors who are known to be women when we are simply stating plain truths, but in a more feminine style that actually IS trying in good faith to build consensus. So let me take a shot at stating my truth in male language instead: That pattern of damned-if-uou-do, damned-if-you-don't is all just a bunch of hypocritical bullcrap. Gerda IS nice, she is simply stating her truths and she is NOT trying to "stir up trouble" (If sincerely caring about article quality and sticking to one's guns is "stirring up trouble" then we're all in deep shit). Gerda is sincerely trying to develop a consensus and I'm just over here to defend her a bit from at all the trolls and stalkers who landed on a userspace draft to express their outrage, consistently misunderstand her, and see demons that aren't there. I'm pissed about this whole rigamarole and don't want to see yet another good editor throw up her hands in disgust. Given that I don't feel particularly like part of this kangaroo court of artificial "consensus" building, I'll step back now that I've vented and let those who are not just here to bash Gerda sort things out. If you can. Montanabw (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I am known for seemingly unrelated comments, see my talk. Hi, Ched, yes I think I hear you, "Go in peace, and try to treat others with respect and kindness", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)