Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox/Archive 1

Ched
Are we supposed to discuss and talk here on the talk page? Or are you hoping others will edit the main/user page? — Ched : ?  10:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ...and I will watchlist (for all the good that will do me - or anyone else for that matter. I'm absolutely TERRIBLE at following others editors.  In fact, I'm terrible at following my own "samned duff" — Ched :  ?  10:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * For the moment, I would prefer discussion on this talk. My statements on the user page are still growing and need my own sorting ;) - I will incorporate good ideas from here when their time comes. - Feel free to add infoboxes that got under the rug to here for discussion, adding just a link on the user page, adding at the bottom. I intentionally left their former discussions behind (all easy to find in case of interest), in order to get a new perspective, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Are infoboxes useful?
Yes, I think they can be, when they provide different information or pull together salient points (often with wikilinks) that are scattered through the article and are hard to find for readers that do not want to read the entire article. However, when most of the items in the infobox merely repeat points generally found in the first paragraph of the lead, then I think they are more of a distraction than an aid. --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you read the article you will understand that they are useful even if they only give a time and a location, as an opera libretto will tell you at what time and location a story takes place. You will understand that the time in granular form is different (and useful for many purposes) from the string, even if it looks the same. (And if you read the history, you will see that I argued exactly like you in March 2012.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * One of the big problems with the bad boxes, is that the people putting them up don't read the (sensible) infobox guidelines. Infoboxes are an old fashioned, arguably outdated, way of presenting key information, and they must be actually useful to the reader to be viable. They are not decorative flourishes to satisfy editorial egos.  Klein zach  01:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "They are not decorative flourishes to satisfy editorial egos" Indeed not. The rest of your comment is unsubstantiated and/ or bollocks. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What an unpleasantly uncolleaguely remark from Pigsonthewing! Most offputting, even to those inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt when he is on the offensive. Tim riley (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It does something for me, a human reader
Re: Talk:José Carlos Cocarelli Answering here, because it might be of broader interest than a talk page of a less prominent pianist, where I said bout the infobox:

It does something for me, a human reader, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you explain what? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I will try.
 * As a reader: I like articles structured in a similar way. I like to look at the familiar spot to find key facts (not a summary). In this case, I would like to see that he is a pianist right on top, but the template is not there yet. It was tried, see Percy Grainger.
 * As an editor: I like to know that "my" data can be reused by programs and translation roboters. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

"Ausgabe" info and the other box
At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music I suggested to postpone re-opening discussions on the infoboxes for Mozart masses.

Well, here I am back, also explaining one of the reasons I wanted to postpone then: at Talk:List of masses by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart I had suggested to include the AMA/NMA info in the box, which was executed for the model boxes shown here and here.

...which made me realise there are some problems:
 * 1) Increases the surface of the infobox, not exactly what would make those not liking them start to like them more;
 * 2) In my view infoboxes should work as a summary, not displaying info not found elsewhere in the article;
 * 3) External links are forbidden in infoboxes, so when IMSLP has the AMA version of the score (they usually do), it is not possible to provide a convenience link from the infobox (which for me would be one of the more interesting reasons why one would give the boring "Series X Volume y No. z" info anyways).
 * 4) The previous are only "circumstantial" objections. The main, and quite principal, objection is: why would one give only the info of "one" active commercial publisher of these scores (in casu Bärenreiter), not the info on the others providing Urtext editions? I mean, K. and D numbers are somewhat universal, they existed before they got intertwined with the Bärenreiter commercial score-publishing activity (and for Schubert at least they continued to exist outside that realm: the 1995 American Deutsch catalogue was not based on the 1978 Bärenreiter version). The NMA/NSE classifications lack such independence, they refer to a particular publisher. Why would one publisher's commercial info be given, overriding efforts by other publishers in that field? I don't underestimate Bärenreiter's efforts, sometimes publishing rare versions not published before, but in the score-publishing business they are for most scores "one out of many".

Prior to fathoming the impact of what has been called infobox-wars, I had invented something else to overcome these difficulties, which you can see here: Schubert scores. The box is currently shown in
 * Piano Sonata in E major D. 157 (Schubert)
 * Piano Sonata in C major D. 279 (Schubert)
 * Piano Sonata in A-flat major D. 557 (Schubert)

Such box also replaces the IMSLP2 template in these articles: the advantage being that the IMSLP template refers only to the linked score as if there was no other one, not even close to drawing attention that the AMA/AGA scores on that website maybe have lost their "commercial" value, but also by definition have missed out on over a century of scholarship. The "scores" template on the other hand puts it all together. You can see Schubert's autograph of the entire piece via a direct link (when available), the 19th century publication date of the AGA version is given before the link at IMSLP, all Urtext editions can be linked, including the Bärenreiter/NSE one.


 * (just taking a short break when typing this, Schubert's D 574 on the radio — yeah that's why these mindnumbing discussions on boxes and scores and wars and DRNs have any meaning, don't they: the music is just too beautiful)

I'd like to work out a particular example of this: the third entry of the scores box in the D 279 article: until recently D 309A was "deest". Bärenreiter claims to have been the first to publish it. Now it is possible to purchase that publication (only 219,00 € ...). But here's what Wikipedia can do: give a direct link to how Schubert wrote it down, so you can see for yourself whether or not you want to have a paper version of that score. And links to both the website where a facsimile copy can be bought, and the Bärenreiter publication. No discrimination among those providing a printed version of the score (neither among those that offer a downloadable version free or otherwise, not giving the impression the "free" ones are the only ones worth linking to).

Also the fourth entry of that same box, on D 346, is interesting. Schubert's autograph leaves the piece unfinished. So nor the autographs website, nor AGA/NSE add a note to that. There are a few notable completions (discussed in various reliable sources). The scores box allows links to where the scores of these completions can be obtained, along the links to the unfinished versions offered by OAW/AGA/NSE. All sorts of things not possible with the very confining IMSLP2 template.

Now here's the catch. The Schubert scores template didn't go down very well:
 * its workshop version got nuked here: Templates for discussion/Log/2014 August 8
 * an attempt at reviving the discussion was a minor "lack of success"

So I put the whole idea on hold until... I realized the AMA/NMA additions to infoboxes were not part of a better solution either.

In short, two things:
 * 1) I withdraw my suggestion to add AMA/NMA info to infoboxes: imho it is not something good to do.
 * 2) I humbly ask to give your opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Compositions task force, I'd value your opinion very much. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Arguments against infoboxes
In discussions about infobox I meet arguments against infoboxes that I find debatable. Some occur regularly, some less frequently. My response is to how I understand the argument, which may differ from how it was intended. The first comment is mine, feel free to add.

undue
"I have no objection per se to boxes for compositions, so long as they conform to WP:UNDUE."
 * The reader should be helped by an infobox regardless how far the article is developed.

summary
"An infobox is supposed to summarise the article."
 * It has to summarize key facts of the article.

not needed
"An infobox is not needed for this article."
 * Of course not, but it can be helpful.

redundant
"The infobox ... would contain only redundant information."
 * An infobox has to be redundant by design.

barrier
"It also presents a barrier to new contributors."
 * If it does, a hidden notice could help.

default status quo
"We default to the status quo"
 * There is no progess in sticking to the status quo.

discussed before
"This was discussed back in ..."
 * Consensus can change.

misrepresentation
"It misrepresents the content of the article."
 * If it does, parameters can be fixed or omitted without reverting the box.

future misrepresentation
"It is absolutely certain that once an infobox is in place, editors will try to extend the detail, adding stuff likely to mislead or misrepresent."
 * If it happens (not so certain) it can easily be reverted.

image size
"The image that goes at the top is reduced to a size that completely obviates its function and ruins the visual effect."
 * The image size can be adjusted.

wasted space
"The box would waste space at the top of article."
 * Fear not, there is no space limit. Often the infobox fills white space next to the TOC.

attention
"The reader's attention should be directed immediately into the key information of the article, which is well-presented in the lead."
 * If there is an image, the reader's attention will go there. An infobox can provide him at a glance key facts, for example a composer's name, which appears in the lead only after help to pronounce, translation(s), subtitle, etc.

lazy reader
"They cater for the lazy reader."
 * They don't cater, they help by supplying key facts, to any reader who looks for them.

ugly
"Infoboxes are ... aesthetically ugly. ... Let's not add another eyesore to another beautifully crafted article."
 * POV, and if really ugly, they can be changed.

author
"We as the authors want people to read our contributions which we have written and researched for many months."
 * You may want to respect also what different readers want.

no education
"To encourage readers to simply rely on the text within the infobox, does nothing for the potential educational values which our articles have to offer."
 * A reader who needs a simple fact will be served better by an infobox, and the other education is still there, undiminuished.

contentious
"Infoboxes are frequently contentious."
 * Is infobox is "contentious" for the given article.

distracting
"The new infobox opera is distracting."
 * The replaced side navbox, navigating away from the article, seems more distracting.

seems
"The new infobox opera seems to me clunky, intrusive, pointless ..."
 * Point of view

pattern
"It's part of the tabular, caption-plus-content pattern of infoboxes."
 * It's a wanted structured design.

not for newcomer
"It doesn't help the opera newcomer understand what Rigoletto is."
 * It doesn't have to. (Not even the article can fully do that.) It tells the newcomer the composer sooner than the lead.

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I made the former list to prose, for easier linking. Note that I didn't touch the topics metadata ad microformats. I detailed explanation of microformats emitted by an infobox is presented by RexxS on Talk:Mont Juic (suite). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

unneccessary
edit summary
 * Yes, so are images. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Chopin
Infobox added by a new user, reverted and discussed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Older cases
, (March 2013)

By others: (2008) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Compare articles, with infobox and without
The following sortable table shows several infoboxes which are/were installed or suggested recently (mostly in 2013) and are under debate. The table is not comprehensive, additions are welcome. Infoboxes include the types infobox person, infobox musician, infobox artwork, infobox organization, infobox Bach composition (short: Bach), infobox musical composition (short: musical), infobox opera, infobox church. "Successful" infoboxes, installed by a principle author of an article and unquestioned, such as most works by Johann Sebastian Bach, are not listed, but those of his works where the infobox was not kept unchanged. Infoboxes that were liked by authors, such as the Schubert masses, are also not shown.

Reactions to added infoboxes range from a complete revert to collapsing of sections, shortening by deletion of parameters or information, and discussion. The latter is wanted. It can be improved by leaving an infobox in place for a certain minimum time, to also gain input from readers.

One aspect of the following table may be to look at the (sometimes amazingly short) time between installation of an infobox and its revert.

The table entries are sorted by date of installation/suggestion of an infobox but can be sorted by other fields.

Table of debated infoboxes

Discussions
Some discussions need a closer view:


 * Sparrow Mass, an edit war that lead to the protection of the page
 * Richard Wagner does not appear in the table because I never suggested an infobox, knowing about the principle author's dislike of them. I only posted one on the talk page, following a recommendation by Newyorkbrad. The (unnecessary) discussion that followed was a discussion as if it had been suggested for the article, and showed the positions of several users clearly.
 * Don Carlos where an infobox suggested was to replace the redundant side navbox Verdi operas in the position of an infobox, redundant because it duplicated navbox Giuseppe Verdi. In order to avoid the side navbox being redundant, it was improved by a better picture, and the other navbox removed without a discussion from almost all Verdi operas. Needless to say that the removed navbox, which had been in place since March 2013, should appear in all articles it links to. At present, the side navbox is in place. See also the project discussion which shows several advantages of an infobox for the specific opera, but so far not one for a side navbox on the other operas/works of the composer (other than "We always did it that way").

Compare articles, with infobox and without

The following table establishes an easy comparison of articles where infobox are debated, showing them with and without infobox. If the infobox is in the present version, please help yourself to a version without it (in imagination or history). Sometimes a shortened/collapsed state is also shown, especially if it is the present version. In some case, the column shows a comparable example of a successful infobox.

Table II of debated infoboxes
The following sortable (not comprehensive) table shows several infoboxes that are or were under debate, infobox person, infobox Bach composition (short: Bach), infobox musical composition (short: composition), infobox opera. Reactions to added infoboxes range from a complete revert to collapsing of sections, shortening by deletion of parameters or information, and discussion. The latter is wanted. It can be improved by leaving an infobox in place for a certain minimum time, to also gain input from readers. The table entries are sorted by date of installation/suggestion of an infobox but can be sorted by other fields. The background colour is red when no infobox is present. If you find that the state is not up to date, please change.

As of 7 September 2014, there are 70 transclusions of infobox opera, 175 of infobox Bach composition, and 187 of infobox musical composition. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC) As of 5 October 2014, there are 75 transclusions of infobox opera, 184 of Bach and 196 of composition. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Table of inclusions of musical composition infoboxes
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Invitations posted
Thus far following invitations have been posted:
 * User talk:Gerda Arendt/Infobox (where prior content of the current page has been moved)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement
 * Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
 * Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
 * Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes
 * Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes

I propose every on- or off-wiki invitation to the current debate be logged here. Invitations may need to be scrutinized by an uninvolved admin in view of WP:CANVASS: for invitations not logged here that could very likely mean a dramaboard-like development for instance at WP:ANI (which I'd avoid). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC); Updated 13:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Moved material and restored
One user moved the entire contents of this page to another users's userspace without consensus. This screwed up a lot of links at other pages and caused general disruption. I have restored this material. Now discuss. Montanabw (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't mind the copy of the old material, that *also* is at User:Gerda Arendt/Infobox. At least the cross-namespace redirect is no longer in place.
 * But we don't need the old material, when properly linked (as it was before Montanabw's intervention )
 * So I propose to have no duplicate copy of what belongs in user namespace, and link to Gerda's reflections and interpretations appropriately from the top of the page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Page layout
I prefer the new discussion at the top of the page, as long as the old userfied content is doubled here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Anyway I'm not going to put my thoughts under a text that on the top of the page starts with "The following thoughts were initiated by ..." My thoughts shouldn't be usurped by anyone, tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've moved the discussion from the project page to this, the talk page; pending a proper fix of the mess you've made. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Moved from main page
I want to make this a page for (the preparation of) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes (Remedy six of the infoboxes case): --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Issue 1: visibility of infoboxes in generated PDF
See — should this issue be raised in the wider community discussion on infoboxes? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This may be a silly question, but wouldn't it be better to fix the PDF problem so that infoboxes are printed. Did PDF generation not use to print infoboxes? Was there a discussion about this somewhere?
 * If the question is raised, should the text not first be changed to the more logical
 * "The PDF version of a Wikipedia page (generated with the "Download as PDF" link) does not include the Infobox, so the infobox should not contain anything that is essential to the article, and is not otherwise repeated in the article body."
 * --Boson (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't know whether that would be a (technical) fix, or something that is disabled by design. Feel free to ask the question to the tech people involved in the PDF module and/or those maintaining the code of the infobox umbrella template. My question is: should we involve community discussion on whether the community thinks it should be one way or the other?
 * Regarding the understandability of the sentence I typed at WikiProject Infoboxes, please improve if you think it unclear or incorrect, it's not like I own the sentence. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Infoboxes are printed when the article is printed, so it nonsense to suggest that there is a problem with printing. It is true that creating a downloadable pdf of an article omits the infobox, but the solution is to amend the routine that excludes the infobox (or better to give the downloader the choice). Infoboxes are far too useful (see WikiProject Infoboxes to be ripping them out of articles merely because of their exclusion from downloaded pdfs. --RexxS (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see WikiProject Infoboxes, there's no "printing" mentioned in the description of the problem (unless when the PDF is printed as I did some days ago). Let's not concentrate on the non-issues, please. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * See with the edit summary "apparently the image isn't printed/PDF-ed when enclosed in a navbox". If you're going to claim that a "navbox" (you meant infobox) isn't printed, then you're making that assertion and I have simply explained to you that you're mistaken. You raised the non-issue, not I. --RexxS (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In the mean while I've directed to at least three places where the problem is identified to exclusively the generated PDF, I'd rewrite the edit summary when I could, but as said, let's not concentrate on non-issues.
 * The generated PDF is the issue, not the direct printing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

On reflection, I assume that the reference to printing is this: there is software available that 'prints' to a pdf file on disc, rather than to paper on a printer. Examples include PrimoPDF, Print-to-PDF, CutePDF and many more. If anyone wants a pdf of the article that includes the infobox, they can simply use one of those free programs to produce a pdf that contains everything that would be printed onto paper - and that includes the infobox, of course. I think you're imagining a problem that simply does not exist. --RexxS (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I know. I use PDFCreator (open source software). That is not the problem. The method offered by Wikipedia does not print the infobox, so the most direct line to a PDF file results in an incomplete article (if information/images not contained in the rest of the article are only included in the infobox).
 * Further, I prefer the two-column layout of the Wikipedia-generated PDF, also for reading on paper.
 * That's how I found out. I had a visit from my father a few days ago, and wanted to give him a print of what I was doing lately, generated and printed the PDF, but only saw afterwards the image was missing.
 * In fact it's about the contradiction between the WP:LEADIMAGE recommendations and the result of the PDF generated by Wikipedia: the lead image should be unique and highly representative of the article, which usually leads to an image not repeated in the body of the article. So no, this doesn't work well together with the PDF generation offered by Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Then that is purely an artefact of the process used by the mediawiki software; it's not a fault of the infobox. Using the "Printable version" link followed by printing through a pdf generator requires exactly the same number of steps as using the "Download as PDF" link followed by saving the generated pdf to disc. I don't accept that the latter is any more direct than the former, and surely you can see that having the option to create a pdf with or without an infobox is actually a benefit, not a disadvantage? --RexxS (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Re. "artefact of the process used by the mediawiki software; it's not a fault of the infobox":
 * I don't know, maybe it depends on the infobox umbrella template (which equals "the infobox", most other templates are included in the PDF and/or are printable, so I don't see why this one couldn't be made this way)
 * The actual issue raised here is whether or not the Wikipedia community should decide what the software should do. I'm sure whatever the community decides, the software can be managed to do it.
 * It's not about the number of steps, it's about the ease with which incomplete versions of articles can be produced. For BWV 243a I don't care with the current image in the infobox: that image is not OK for WP:LEADIMAGE, non-essential to the article, I couldn't care whether or not it is included in PDF and printed versions. Same for the image in the infobox at Rondo in C minor (Bruckner): image not OK for WP:LEADIMAGE (see talk page discussion on that one), non-essential to the article, couldn't care less when versions of that article without the infobox are spread. But the problem arises when the image in the infobox *is* OK with WP:LEADIMAGE, then the image becomes an unmissable part of the article, and I think it a bad idea that incomplete versions of the article can be spread easily.
 * The general background is also that I was indifferent (completely in balance) about infoboxes: for me advantages and disadvantages of infoboxes were equally strong, so I felt indifferent about them (I can give proof of that when needed), until a few days ago this minor difference added slightly to the disadvantages, so now for articles that have an essential image in the infobox, I'm against the infobox.
 * Again, the thing that needs to be solved in the first place imho is whether or not we want images in infoboxes to conform to WP:LEADIMAGE, if so I want to know in the next step what the community thinks about the inclusion yes or no in the PDF generated directly by the Wikipedia software. We don't want people who click the "download as PDF" link to know in advance it discerns images on whether or not they are included in what we call infoboxes, but what an average reader is not expected to be familiar with. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The pdf link creates a totally scewed up article; I just tried it and it also omits the table of contents! The software is buggy; definitely us the "print version" link.   Montanabw (talk)  04:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * (FYI: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox discusses the page layout now)
 * I don't think the generated PDF is "totally scewed up" (sic). Anyway, seems like this is something where a wider community input would be welcome. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Generally, I'd recommend participants in this discussion to give up WP:BATTLEGROUND attitudes, per Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes (remedy five of the arbcom case). About the issue discussed in this talk page section I suppose at least two routes can be explored, probably best both: I'm no supporter of the attitude of "denial" either, suggesting there's no problem, and anyone should know (how?) that the PDF-generating software provided by Wikipedia shouldn't be used etc. I regard that as a non-constructive attitude, akin to battleground attitude. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Have a closer look at the techical angle (as I already suggested above), ask the ones responsible for the PDF-generating module, see whether a minor change in the infobox umbrella template can solve the issue, etc...
 * 2) Prepare the wider community discussion as recommended by ArbCom (remedy six of the ArbCom case as quoted above)

Further continuation of discussions in Wikipedia: and Wikipedia talk: namespaces

 * Recommended talk page to continue the discussion above: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox
 * See WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox for the framework of the discussions
 * Any content above on this page (or on User:Gerda Arendt/Infobox), and relevant to (get the) the community discussion as intended by remedy six of the infoboxes arbitration case (started) can be copied/merged to one of the pages linked in the two first bullets above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I uncollapsed the active discussion, leaving this for history. Any neutral discussion of infoboxes should NOT be on the pages of this project which supports them, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)